1 67 ao.656.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 656 OF 2010 Jaihind Shorthand & Typing Institute and others. ... Appellants Versus Shakil Abdul Sayyed and another. ... Respondents ­­­­­ Mr. U.P.Warunjikar for the Appellants. Mr. Madhav Jamdar for the Respondents. ­­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25 th April, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. 2 The Appellants are the defendants in a suit filed by the Respondents for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit property. By the impugned order dated 12 th August, 2009, the learned trial Judge has restrained the Appellant Nos.1 and 2 from creating third party rights and from alienating the suit property till the final disposal of the suit. 3 After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, I find that there is no error in the impugned order, which is 2 67 ao.656.10 operating from 12 th August, 2009. Apart from that, in the written statement filed by the Appellants which is also a reply to the application for temporary injunction filed by the Respondents, a categorical statement has been made in paragraph No.13 that there is no intention on the part of the Appellants of creating third party rights or transferring the suit property till the dispute is going on. 4 Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order of temporary injunction. Appeal from order is dismissed. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. 5 Hearing of the suit is expedited. 6 Civil Application No. 836 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]