Judgment R.D. Kothari, J.—The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by refusal of interim relief in the Civil Suit by the Courts below. At the outset, I may say that though the matter was argued with quite vehemence by the learned advocates for the parties, I would try to reach to the conclusion by expressing briefly opinion on the merits of the case. I would try to be as brief as possible in expression of my opinion not only because the proceedings are just at “initial” stage, but also because short question in detail submission raised was where in the circumstances of the case lay the equity ? 2. Short relevant facts are thus : The suit property is situated at Village Varnama, District and Tauluka Vadodara. The suit property is Block Nos. 101 and 109. It is say of the plaintiff that in 1982, the respondent / defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The sale price alleged to have been fixed between the parties is 70,000/. The plaintiff alleged to have paid Rs. 63,000/to the respondent – defendant. Lateron, in 1995 – on 14.05.1995 – the petitioner had said to have paid remaining Rs. 7,000/to the respondent. Parties are closely related. It was submitted at the time of hearing that they are cousin brothers. Admittedly, no written agreement was executed, it is the say of the plaintiff that suit property was transferred pursuant to oral agreement entered into between the parties. It is also say of the plaintiff that in pursuant to the said transaction, the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. The other relevant facts is, the respondent had executed power of attorney in favour of real brother of the plaintiff. The said power of attorney was executed on 17.05.1995. It is further case of the plaintiff that on 25.06.2006, Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred as ‘MoU’) was executed in respect of suit transaction and therein the respondent had acknowledged the receipt of sale consideration. The plaintiff thereafter had said to have called upon the respondent to execute the sale deed on 13.08.2008 but no response on behalf of the respondent and thereafter, giving of alleged oral threat to the petitioner in respect of suit transaction has led the petitioner to institute the Regular Civil Suit No. 977 of 2008 before Senior Division Court, Baroda. The plaintiff thereafter had said to have called upon the respondent to execute the sale deed on 13.08.2008 but no response on behalf of the respondent and thereafter, giving of alleged oral threat to the petitioner in respect of suit transaction has led the petitioner to institute the Regular Civil Suit No. 977 of 2008 before Senior Division Court, Baroda. In substance the prayer of the plaintiff is in two part; the respondent be restrained from transferring or alienating the suit property in any manner to the third party till the final disposal of the suit and consequently, the respondent be restrained from causing any interference either by himself or through his agents, servants, etc. in petitioner’s peaceful enjoyment of the suit property. 3. On the line of relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, plaintiff has also prayed for interim relief in application as Exh. 5. It may be stated that the defendant has denied all the assertions of the plaintiff. It is say of the defendant that no such transaction has ever taken place and no consideration or part consideration is ever received by the respondent. The respondent does not dispute the execution of power of attorney. However, it is say of the respondent that the same was tampered with by the petitioner and thereby, attempt was made by the petitioner to show that beside the land which is referred in the said deed, it includes suit property also. It is also say of the defendant that reference and reliance on receipt of remaining part consideration i.e. Rs. 7,000/is misleading. 4. The learned trial court has held that plaintiff has no prima facie case and other two ingredients are also not in favour of the plaintiff. Holding so, adinterim relief initially granted by the trial court was vacated by it. The matter was carried in appeal. The appellate court had also upheld the order of the trial court and was pleased to dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present petition. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Shah for the petitioner and Ms. Trusha Patel, learned advocate for the respondent. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has drawn attention of the court to the averments made by the petitioner / plaintiff in the plaint and has also drawn attention to “cause of action” stated by the plaintiff in the plaint. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Shah for the petitioner and Ms. Trusha Patel, learned advocate for the respondent. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has drawn attention of the court to the averments made by the petitioner / plaintiff in the plaint and has also drawn attention to “cause of action” stated by the plaintiff in the plaint. Learned advocate also referred the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. Thereafter, referring the material on record, it was submitted that the said material would show that plaintiff has a prima facie case. To this, i.e. the material referred, I may refer in a moment. Commenting on the order passed by learned trial court and the appellate court, it was submitted that on the face of these material on record, the learned lower courts have seriously erred in not believing the prima facie case of the petitioner. Since the plaintiff has a prima facie case – it was submitted in the circumstances of the present case, it would be more appropriate to maintain status quo. It may be stated that learned advocate Mr. Shah at the time of hearing, pointed out that despite the refusal of interim relief by two courts below, this Court after hearing both sides was pleased to pass an order to continue the interim relief that had remained operative till the conclusion of the case. In view of that also, it was submitted that, status quo should be continued till the disposal of the suit and disposal of the suit may be expedited. 7. Referring the material on record, learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that report of the Commissioner shows that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land. Thus, the Commissioner’s report is in favour of the petitioner. Secondly, reliance was placed on affidavits filed by the owners of the neighbouring plots. It was submitted that there are four affidavits in this regard supporting the say of the petitioner. Next reliance was placed on acknowledgment / receipt of Rs. 7,000/issued by the respondent. But for the suit transaction, it was submitted that this receipt would not have been issued by the respondent. Lastly, attention was also drawn to payment of land revenue by the petitioner in respect of this suit land. In this regard, attention was drawn to receipt of payment of land revenue. Alongwith this material, learned advocate Mr. But for the suit transaction, it was submitted that this receipt would not have been issued by the respondent. Lastly, attention was also drawn to payment of land revenue by the petitioner in respect of this suit land. In this regard, attention was drawn to receipt of payment of land revenue. Alongwith this material, learned advocate Mr. Shah has also placed reliance on deed of power of attorney and MoU, it was submitted that this material clearly supports the say of the petitioner. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has also drawn attention to the case of Ravi Prakash Agarwal and Others versus Rajesh Prasad Agarwal and Others reported in 2009 (1) GLH 655 (SC), Yeshwant Sakhalkar versus Hirabat Kamat Mhamai reported in 2004 (9) Scale 38 and Ibrahim Shah Mohammad & Others versus Noor Ahmed Noor Mohammad & Others reported in 24 (2) GLR 961. Commenting on the order of the lower courts, it was submitted that generally for consideration of the case at this stage, the court would only consider whether the triable issues are raised or not. No searching and inquiry need to be made at this stage of the case. It was submitted that courts below has committed serious jurisdictional error by not properly considering the above referred material on record and, that being so, interference by this Court is called for. 9. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Trusha Patel for the respondent has vehemently opposed assertions of the petitioner. Learned advocate has drawn attention to say of the respondent as appear in the order of the learned trial court. It was submitted by the respondent that no such transaction has ever taken place, that in the revenue record name of the respondent is shown as occupant and cultivator of the suit property. Thus, revenue record supports the say of the respondent. In this regard, learned advocate has drawn attention to Section 135(J) of the Bombay Land Revenue Act and has submitted that conclusiveness is attributed to such entry of the revenue record. Commenting on revenue receipts produced by the petitioner, it was submitted that they all are of year 2008 or subsequent to that i.e. around the time of institution of suit and thereafter. If the claim of the petitioner has any substance then receipt of any previous year could have been produced by the petitioner. Commenting on revenue receipts produced by the petitioner, it was submitted that they all are of year 2008 or subsequent to that i.e. around the time of institution of suit and thereafter. If the claim of the petitioner has any substance then receipt of any previous year could have been produced by the petitioner. That reliance placed on revenue receipts are not only misplaced, it is misleading. If the petitioner are really in occupation of suit land, then how it is possible that not a single evidence the petitioner is able to produce about cultivation etc. of previous period of over 25 years. Supporting affidavit – it was submitted is a fairly weak piece of evidence. It is more or less in the nature of self serving assertion. Further there is apparent and glaring inconsistency and even contradictions in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The learned advocate does not seriously dispute execution of power of attorney in question. However, it was urged that same was tampered with to show that the said deed was executed also to cover the suit transaction. In fact, it was submitted – it is not so. It was submitted that for this precise reason, the petitioner has not produced the original copy of power of attorney before the Court. Then qua acknowledgment / receipt of Rs. 7,000/supporting the findings of the courts below, it was submitted that said acknowledgment is in respect of other “house property” and the same is wrongly pressed into the service by the petitioner in support of the suit transaction. MoU – it was submitted – is not at all in nature of inspiring confidence. It was submitted that respondent has not executed the MoU. That the power of attorney holder has executed the said MoU, only to support stale and hopelessly time barred claim of the petitioner. Ms. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that claim of the petitioner is clearly barred by the limitation – even if one assumes assertion of petitioner to be true. Suit for specific performance is required to be filed within three years from accruing cause of action. The strained efforts made by the petitioner to give impression that cause of action has arisen within limitation, has in the opinion of learned advocate no substance. Suit for specific performance is required to be filed within three years from accruing cause of action. The strained efforts made by the petitioner to give impression that cause of action has arisen within limitation, has in the opinion of learned advocate no substance. The learned advocate has also placed emphasis on the limitation of this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction in concurrent findings of two courts below. It was asserted that even if there is error of law, this court would not interfere with exercise of discretion. In this regard, learned advocate has drawn attention to Chhagan Ranchod Kukvava versus General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay & Anr. reported in 1998 (1) GLH 461 . In support of plea of limitation, reliance was placed on Lalubhai Hirabhai Patel and Another versus IndoJapan Industries and Others reported in 2001 (1) GLH 77 . 10. Relying on M. Gurudas versus Rasaranjan reported in AIR 2006 SC 3275 , it was submitted that it is not true that plaintiff is required to show and establish only prima facie case and that other ingredients, follows automatically. It was asserted that plaintiff have had to succeed also on the ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable injury. In the present case, it was submitted that plaintiff has managed to raise some doubt and has tried to draw picture showing some possibilities. These, in the opinion of learned advocate by itself is not sufficient for issuance of interim relief. 11. Replying in brief – submission of learned advocate for the respondent, Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner’s, that, that neither the trial court nor appellate court has refused the interim relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation. In fact, it was submitted that, there is no “specific findings” of the learned trial court on limitation. If otherwise, the claim of the petitioner is not barred by the limitation, then merely because it is delayed claim, relief cannot be refused. In the circumstances of the present case, there is no question of delayed approaching of the court. Replying of receipt issued, which is said to have been issued by the respondent for receiving of Rs. 7,000/, it was submitted that contrary to the claim of the respondent, the receipt refers to the land and not to the “house property”. In the circumstances of the present case, there is no question of delayed approaching of the court. Replying of receipt issued, which is said to have been issued by the respondent for receiving of Rs. 7,000/, it was submitted that contrary to the claim of the respondent, the receipt refers to the land and not to the “house property”. Further, it was pointed out that claim of the respondent is also to the effect that said receipt of Rs. 7,000/- is forged one. Thus, in sense, contradictory say is advanced by the respondent urging on the one hand that receipt itself is forged and on the other hand urging that it relates to some different properly and not to the suit transaction. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that alleged contradiction crept in, in affidavit filed before the court is also unnecessarily exaggerated by the trial court. It was submitted that in the two affidavits filed on the same day, deponents make consistent assertions. In the circumstances, therefore, discarding of the affidavit is not proper. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Shah also submitted that entering into oral agreement in respect of immovable property per se is not illegal and such agreement is enforceable. It was pointed out that this position of law is well settled way back since 1968. 13. Learned advocate Mr. Shah, opening his submissions at the time of hearing and before advancing the submissions on merits, has drawn attention to Ravi Prakash Agarwal and Others’ case (Supra) and Yeshwant Sakhalkar versus Hirabai Kamat Mhamai’s case (Supra). Relying on these, it was submitted that status quo that has continued till today should be ordered to be continued till the final disposal of the suit and since it has continued for over five years, it may be continued for few months and – suit may be ordered to be expedited. Opposing this prayer vehemently, learned advocate Ms. Patel for the respondent has tried to distinguish these case laws. In the present case, both the courts below, has held against the petitioner. Considering the nature of material, it would not be just, proper and legal for this court to re-appreciate the material at this stage. Some exaggeration made on one or the other point by both sides, material on record are yet to be tested at trial. In the present case, both the courts below, has held against the petitioner. Considering the nature of material, it would not be just, proper and legal for this court to re-appreciate the material at this stage. Some exaggeration made on one or the other point by both sides, material on record are yet to be tested at trial. If we refer the acknowledgment for instance, which is said to have been issued by the respondent, prima facie it gives impression to be true and reliable. It may turn out to be otherwise at the end of trial. However, at the moment, what is puzzling is, the said acknowledgment is of May, 1995 and thereafter, suit is instituted only in 2008. Further, it neither specify the suit property nor it mentions payment of substantial consideration that petitioner claims to have made earlier. Such clarification and reference was natural in the circumstances of the case, if not in the acknowledgment itself, some time thereafter. Payment of full consideration would have pushed the plaintiffs towards taking some such steps. Plaintiffs would have acted swiftly instead of forgetting it conveniently for unexplained length of period that stretched to 2008 – particularly when they have said to have paid full consideration. Their prolonged and unexplained inaction is inconsistent with their, now fight with, “tooth and nail” so to say – than on the other hand as observed above, respondent alleges acknowledgment writing to be forged one and also alleged that it relates to some different transaction (later assertion implies it is not forged one). Thus, there is inconsistent assertion in respect of acknowledgment writing by the respondent also. Similarly, execution of MoU – not by the respondent but by the power of attorney holder – as late as in 2006, instead of executing deed, at best, is neither here nor there and it does not help much to the petitioner. Both the courts had held that essential ingredients are not in favour of the petitioner. More than that it has held that petitioner has not come before the court with clean hands. To re-appreciate the case in further detail, as observed above, is not just and proper in the circumstances of the present case. It can be said and summed up by saying that odds are against the petitioner. 14. More than that it has held that petitioner has not come before the court with clean hands. To re-appreciate the case in further detail, as observed above, is not just and proper in the circumstances of the present case. It can be said and summed up by saying that odds are against the petitioner. 14. In my opinion in the present case, ends of justice would be served and equities may be adjusted for the short period by modifying the order to some extent. The respondent are hereby restrained till the passing of further order in this regard from transferring or alienating the suit land in any manner to third party. However, the later prayer to restrain the respondent and his agents and servants etc. from causing interference in peaceful enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff – petitioner is hereby refused and rejected. 15. Both the sides are conceded the need for expedite hearing of the suit. Parties have filed their pleadings. Learned trial Court is directed to disposed of the suit with aid and assistance of learned advocates for the parties within six months from the date of receipt of writ by it. It may also be stated that trial court would bear in mind well settled principle – to decide the suit without being influenced by opinion expressed in the present interim relief application. 16. With above modifications, present petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.