SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1368 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1689 OF 2010 Praful Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. ...Appellant. v. Mr. Nilesh D. Chavda & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. R.M.Narula i/by Mr. Bhupendra R. Singh ,advs. For the Appellant. Mr. A.I.I.Patel, AGP For the Respondent No.3. Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi a/w Mr. Rajiv Gupta, advs. For the R.Nos.and 2. Ms K.K.Soran i/by Mrs. V.K.Khan, advs. For the R.No.4 CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel at length. Appeal was preferred by the defendant no.4/Society against the refusal to vacate the ad- interim relief granted by the trial Court in Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs in L.C.Suit No.1995 of 2010. Plaintiffs are the respondent nos.1 and 2 before this Court. It appears that in September, 2010 one Mr. Ketkar chairman of the defendant no.4/Society had filed an affidavit to the effect that the society would not appoint any developer and would be generating its own funds and retain the right to sell the property after development. However, during the arguments a large number of documents are brought to my notice to show that original decision taken in April, 2010 for appointment of sole selling agency for the society was - 2 - superseded by different decisions taken in August, 2010 whereby developer was appointed. It appears that all those decisions were taken unanimously by the special general body meeting but these facts were not before the trial Court. In view of the above, it would be necessary for the defendant nos.4 and 5 to file fresh affidavit before the trial Court as well as to present all the relevant material for consideration. As this material was not before the trial Court, ad-interim relief was granted. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant, after taking instructions from Mr. Ketkar chairman of the society, who is present in the Court, seeks to withdraw the appeal. 2 In view of the above, appeal stands disposed off as withdrawn. 3 Defendant no.4 shall be permitted to file fresh affidavit-in- reply alongwith all the documents before the trial Court within two weeks from this date. Plaintiffs may file rejoinder within one week thereafter. The trial Court shall hear the parties and dispose off the notice of motion on its own merits within four weeks thereafter. All the questions including the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the dispute between the members of the society and the society are left open to be decided at the time of notice of motion. - 3 - 4 Status-quo shall be maintained by the parties till decision of the notice of motion. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1418 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1771 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.919 OF 2011 Mr. Arun A. Trivedi ...Appellant. v. The State and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi a/w Mr. Rajiv Gupta ,advs. For the Appellant. Mr. A.I.I.Patel, AGP For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms K.K.Soran, adv. For the BMC/R.No.3. Mr. R.M.Narula i/by Mr. Bhupendra R. Singh, advs. For the R.No.4. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2011. P.C. 1 In view of the orders passed in Appeal From Order No.1368 of 2010 in the connected matter, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal as well as applications. 2 Appeal and the applications stand disposed off as withdrawn. 3 Trial Court shall hear notice of motion in L.C.Suit No.2275 of 2010 also alongwith notice of motion in L.C.Suit no.1995 of 2010. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)