( 1 ) ON the last date, these matters were fully heard arid when the Court was about to dictate the judgment, Mr. V. M. Pancholi sought time to take instruction whether his client would like to invite an order or would withdraw Exh. 5, and the matter was, therefore, adjourned for today. Today, Mr. Pancholi states that his client would not like to withdraw Exh. 5 and the court may dispose of the appeals on merits. Since arguments are fully heard and since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order and common points are involved in both the appeals, with the consent of learned advocates, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) AMIT Pransukhlal Patel (hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff) filed Special Civil Suit No. 108 of 2006 against vishnuji Ramtuji Thakore and 11 others (hereinafter referred to as the original defendants) before the Senior Civil Judge. Ahmedabad Rural. It is the case of the original plaintiff in the suit that the original defendants are owners of some properly situated in Thallej area. Daskroi Taluka, ahmedabad District which is described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for which a Banachitti was executed by defendant No. 1, vishnuji Ramtuji Thakore on 20-12-1991. As per the said banachitti, the suit, property was agreed to be sold at Rs. 14,35,500/- and the plaintiff had paid Rs. 12,80,000/- as Earnest Money. The defendants were required to obtain title clearance certificate and, thereafter, sale deed was to be executed eight months after showing the title clearance certificate to the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have not furnished the title clearance certificate and even no information is given to the plaintiff in this connection. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the said agreement still exists. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1, Vishnuji ramtuji Thakore, executed the agreement for himself as well as on behalf of other family members. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have now published a notice on 21-9-2005 in connection with title clearance of the suit property and the plaintiff, therefore, gave his objection on 27-9-2002. Even thereafter, the defendants have failed to execute the sale deed in his favour, and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance.

( 3 ) IN the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff has taken out an application for interim injunction, Exh. 5, for restraining the defendants from selling, transferring or alienating the suit property in any manner whatsoever.

( 4 ) THE said application for interim injunction is resisted by the defendants. The defendants have denied execution of the alleged agreement. It is the say of the defendants that the so called banachitti is fraudulent and defendant No. 1 has not executed any such document. It is also the say of the defendants that the plaintiff is a businessman and not an agriculturist, and, therefore, the suit property could not have been sold to a non-agriculturist. It is also the case of the defendants that even otherwise, the suit is time barred as the alleged agreement is of the year 1991 and the suit is filed in the year 2006.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge initially, on 8-5-2006, directed the defendants to maintain status quo. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 30-11-2006, the learned trial judge partly allowed the application Exh. 5 and directed the defendants to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit.

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-2006 passed by the 5th Additional senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 108 of 2006, the original defendants have filed Appeal from order No. 358 of 2006. Surprisingly, though an interim relief is granted in favour of the original plaintiff, he has also chall