1 58 ao.876.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 876 OF 2010 Deepak Laxman Sadawarte. ... Appellant Versus Ramchandra Vasudeo Abhyankar and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28 th March, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2 The Appellant is the 1 st defendant. Respondent No.1 - original plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 17 th February, 2007 allegedly executed by the Appellant in his favour. The case made out by Respondent No.1 is that under the agreement for sale itself it is recorded that out of the agreed consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- was paid to the Appellant. By the impugned order, application for temporary injunction made by Respondent No.1 has been allowed by restraining the Appellant from creating third party rights in respect of the suit property. 2 58 ao.876.10 3 The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant is that the Appellant was not heard before passing the impugned order and therefore, an order of remand be passed. The second submission is that the suit agreement itself is a doubtful document. He invited the attention of the Court to the photocopy of the said agreement annexed to the appeal and stated that on almost all the pages, there are no initials of the parties. He, therefore, submitted that considering the doubtful nature of the said agreement, the impugned order has been passed. 4 I have considered the submissions. In view of the observations made by this Court in order dated 6 th December, 2010, it is not possible to accede to the request for passing an order of remand by this Court, as this Court has noted that the Appellant and his advocate were absent at the time of hearing of the application for temporary injunction. 5 Only a limited interim relief has been granted restraining the Appellant from creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property. The suit for specific performance filed by Respondent No.1 is pending and therefore, it is not possible to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. 3 58 ao.876.10 6 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the order passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 1105 of 2008 is pending in the District Court. The findings recorded in the impugned order subject matter of challenge in this appeal are only a tentative findings and it is made clear that the pending appeal before the District Court will be decided on its own merits. 7 Subject to what is observed above, appeal from order is dismissed. 8 Civil Application No. 1440 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]