1 776.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 776 OF 2011 Shri Govind Bapu Satkar. ... Appellant. V/s. Shri Rambhau Bhaguji Gholap ... Respondent. U.B.Nighot for the appellant. D.S.Patil for the respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 22nd November 2011. P.C. : The application tendered by the plaintiff/ appellant herein seeking interim order of injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the suit property and creating third party interest has been turned down by the trial Court in view of order passed 10th June 2011. The alleged agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff is dated 17th January 1981. It is the contention of the plaintiff that possession receipt has been executed by the defendant on the same date and the suit property has been put in his possession. There was a ban in respect of execution of sale-deed, as such sale deed could not be executed. Plaintiff came to know about the lifting of ban in the year 2005 and presented instant suit for specific performance of the agreement in the year 2010. Thus, the plaintiff is seeking specific 2 776.11-ao performance of the agreement executed in the year 1981 by instituting suit in the year 2010 i.e. almost after 29 years. So far as possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is concerned, the witnesses to the possession receipt are not supporting the claim of the plaintiff. Revenue record pertaining to the suit property also records the name of the defendant. The trial Court taking into consideration all relevant aspect came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish prima facie case as regards his possession over the suit property and, as such, rejected the application seeking interim injunction. 2. I have perused the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity or inconsistency in the impugned order. Considering the fact that the alleged agreement was executed in the year 1981 and suit for specific performance is filed in the year 2010, the trial Court was justified in refusing to grant interim relief. The appeal is devoid of any substance. 3. In the result, appeal from order is dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent/ original defendant assures that his client will not create any third party interest in the suit property during pendency and disposal of the suit without obtaining leave of the Court. (R.M.BORDE, J.)