1 ao40.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 40 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2502 OF 2011 [Sow. Kamalbai w/o Rupansing Warma vs. Ramkrishna s/o Raghunath Dhumal] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Milind K. Deshpande, Advocate for appellant. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2011 PER COURT : Appeal from Order takes exception to the order dated 26-10-2010 passed below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 140 of 2009 by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the sale deed is executed as back as on 14-02-2006. The amount of consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- is paid to the owner of the property in cash. 2 ao40.11 Suit is belatedly filed in the year 2009. Since the amount of consideration was given in cash and suit is filed after three years, in such a suit, prayer of injunction not to alienate or create any third party interest in respect of suit property, should not have been given by the trial Court. 2. I have heard Counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order. From perusal of the facts of the case, prima facie it appears that, while executing sale deed cheque was given to the respondent towards consideration. However, it appears that said cheque was not encashed and therefore, suit is filed by the respondent. The contention which is taken by the original plaintiff in the suit is that, the sale deed is executed, however, consideration amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- has not been given by the 3 ao40.11 defendant to the plaintiff in cash. The defendant has given cheque of Rs.6,50,000/- against the consideration amount. When the plaintiff has deposited the said cheque in the concerned bank for encashment, it was bounced on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’. Therefore, taking into consideration the averments and pleadings in the suit and also in application for injunction, the trial Court has taken a view that during the pendency of suit, the appellant is required to be restrained from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property. 3. In my opinion, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view. If the amount was given in cash, in that case, there was no question of issuing cheque in favour of the plaintiff by the husband of the appellant. Equitable order has been passed by the trial Court. Order assailed 4 ao40.11 in this Appeal from Order is a discretionary. 4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal from Order is devoid of any merits and same stands dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application stands disposed of. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11