1 ao1242 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1242 OF 2008 Mohan Achyut Tarde ...Appellant vs. Zhampa Bhau Tikone & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Medha Mandke for the appellant Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the respondent nos.1 to 5 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 11,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. By the impugned order dated 4 th March 2008, discretionary and equitable order of temporary injunction has been denied by the trial Court to the appellant-plaintiff. 2 The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the year 2007 for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 24th January 1995 executed by the respondent in his favour. The application for temporary injunction made by the appellant has been rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground of delay and latches. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sale deed could not be executed on account of failure of the appellant to comply the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay has been adequately explained and the suit was not filed earlier on account of the assurances given by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that the application for injunction could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay and 2 ao1242 latches. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. As stated earlier, the suit is for specific performance of the agreement dated 24th January 1995 which was filed in the year 2007. Perusal of the averments made in the plaint show that there are vague averments in paragraph 4 that the appellant had conveyed his readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration both orally and in writing. However, particulars of any such communication in writing have not been set out. Perusal of the plaint prima facie shows complete inaction on the part of the appellant for a long time. 5 In the circumstances, trial Court was justified in declining to grant interim injunction of equitable nature. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. If during the pendency of the suit third party rights are created by the respondent, the same will be subject to final outcome of the suit. The trial Court will decide the suit on its own merits without being influenced by the tentative finding recorded by this Court as well as trial Court. Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE