:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.91 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.91 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.91 OF 2007 Smt. Usha Dilip Mirchandani ...Appellant. v. Shri Khurshid Saifuddin Bohri & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.Asha M. Bhambwani , adv. for the Appellant. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan , adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 28th April, 2008. DATE: 28th April, 2008. DATE: 28th April, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The present appellant is the original defendant no.1 and owner of the suit property, which is situated at village:Deoghar, Taluka:Mulshi, District Pune. The respondent no.3 was holding power of attorney on behalf of the present appellant. Respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs, claimed to have entered into an agreement for sale of the said land with the respondent no.3 for a consideration of Rs.30 lakhs, out of which they claimed to have paid Rs.7 lakhs to the respondent no.3 and the balance amount was to be paid on the execution of the sale deed. Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed Special Civil Suit No.1210 of 2004 for specific performance of the contract. Pending the suit, present appellant executed sale deed of the same property in :2: favour of the Jesus Sudhir Lal and Neelam Sudhir Lal on 1-2-2006 for a consideration of Rs.60 lakhs and mutation entry no.4263 about that transaction was taken by Talathi and was sent to Tehsildar, Mulshi for certification. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed an application before the trial Court to stay the effect of the mutation entry in favour of the Jesus and Neelam Lal. It was contended by the respondent nos.1 and 2 that after filing of the suit for specific performance of the contract, they had registered lis-pendence notice on 17-01-2005 with Sub-Registrar’s office and the same was also recorded as mutation entry no.4035 in 7/12 extract of the property. According to them, in spite of this, the present appellant had sold the property to third person and, therefore, it was necessary to stay the mutation entry taken on the basis of sale deed executed by the present appellant. 3. Application was strongly opposed by the present appellant contending that she had entered into an agreement for sale of the property in favour of Jesus and Neelam Lal on 25-2-2003, i.e., before the respondent nos.1 and 2 had entered into an agreement with the respondent no.3. It was also contended that on 11-9-2004, the power of attorney in favour of the respondent no.3 was also revoked and this fact was published in newspaper on 11-10-2004. The suit was filed for specific performance on 16-11-2004 by the :3: respondent nos.1 and 2 and, therefore, the sale of property by the present appellant is justified. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court, in the interest of justice allowed the application and directed Tehsildar to stay the effect of mutation entry no.4263 till final disposal of the suit. This order is challenged in the present appeal by the original defendant nos.1. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. It appears that initially the present appellant had in paragraph 6 of the written statement clearly stated that she did not propose to sell the property. It clearly shows that when the written statement was filed by the present appellant, there was no agreement for sale between the appellant and Jesus and Neelam Lal. This story of agreement of sale on 25-2-2003 was sought to be brought on record by making an amendment in the written statement but that application for amendment was rejected by the trial Court and even Writ Petition No.5260 of 2007 filed by the present appellant challenging that order was dismissed. It is material to note that in spite of having made the statement in paragraph 6 of the written statement, that she did not intend to sell the property, she actually entered into transaction with Jesus and Neelam Sudhir Lal and executed sale deed in their favour on 1-2-2006 when the :4: suit for specific performance of the contract was pending. In my considered opinion, the impugned order to stay the mutation entry no.4263 on the basis of the sale deed, pending the suit, is necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigations and further sale transactions. In view of these circumstances, I see no illegality or mistake in the impugned order. In any case, relief of temporary injunction is discretionary in nature and unless it can be pointed out that the order passed by the trial Court is perverse, illegal or per-se wrong, the appellate Court shall not interfere in the discretion used by the trial Court. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal stands dismissed. 7. At this stage, Mr.Patwardhan the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 makes a statement that without prejudice to the rights and interest of the respondent nos.1 and 2, they shall move an application before the trial Court to implead purchasers Jesus and Neelam Sudhir Lal as defendants in the suit. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)