Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

1. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal is placed before us for deciding following questions of law, which are framed by learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.], when the Appeal was placed before him for admission:-

(I) Does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provide adequate protection to the parties from transfers pendente lite since such transferees are not required to be, or entitled as of right to be, imp leaded as parties to the suit and cannot resist execution proceedings in view of provisions of Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code as amended by this Court?

(II) Would plaintiffs' registering notices of their suits under Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act (though such registration may not be compulsory) not secure for plaintiffs more than what an injunction could secure since transferees, who purchase property, pendente lite in spite of such registration would be deemed to have notice of pendency of the lis and could not claim to be transferees without notice? And, would such registration not be preferable to clamping an injunction on adversary?

(III) Since a plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction is required to show that he would suffer irreparably if temporary injunction is not issued, would it be inappropriate to expect such plaintiff to show that the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act do not afford adequate protection before an injunction to restrain transfer pendente lite is issued?

(IV) Would it be appropriate, in cases of claims for temporary injunction to restrain transfers pendente lite, to consider imposition of conditions short of granting injunction, which should protect the plaintiff's interest, like, seeking an undertaking that no equities would be claimed on account of sale or development of properties; effecting sales only after putting transferees to notice that their rights would be subject to the pending suit, or requiring the party to inform the Court promptly of creation of every such interest?

(V) Whether the observation in para (13) of the judgment in Vasant Tatoba Hargude and others v. Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari, (AIR 1980 Bombay 341) that in the event of there being conflict, the decision of later Bench would bind only lays down that judgment later in point of time as explaining the earlier judgment would bind?

2. The facts of the Appeal, which may be relevant for deciding these questions of law, can be stated as follows:

The appellant herein has filed Special Civil Suit No.104 of 2012 before the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan for specific performance of Agreement to Sale. Along with the suit, appellant has also filed an application for injunction at Exhibit-5, restraining Respondent No.7 from creating third party interests in the suit property pending hearing of the suit. It is the case of the Appellant that Respondent Nos.1 to 6 owned the suit land and agreed to sell the same to the appellant by executing two Agreements of Sale for consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.17,40,000/-. Out of these two Agreements of Sale, the Agreement of Sale for Rs.30,00,000/- was registered on 28th January 2011 and the second Agreement of Sale remained to be registered. The appellant paid to Respondent Nos.1 to 6 Rs.13,36,600/- towards the transaction as earnest money. Respondent Nos.1 to 6, however, executed registered Sale Deed of the said land in favour of Respondent No.7 on 29th March 2012. The appellant now apprehends that Respondent No.7 may create further third party interests in the said property, pending the suit. Therefore, he sought temporary injunction by filing application at Exhibit-5 along with the suit.

3. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide its impugned order holding that the appellant had not made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience was not in his favour. Moreover, the appellant has also not shown that any irreparab