ash 1 ao-12.05,ca,and-ao1099.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 12 OF 2005 Kayum Khan .. Appellant Vs M/s. Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent -- Shri Shailesh Shah and Shri Yadunath Chandhani i/by Shri Kunal Cheema for the Appellant. Shri Rajesh Kachare for Respondent. -- WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1099 OF 2004 M/s. Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs Kaym Khan .. Respondent -- Shri Rajesh Kachare for Appellant. Shri Shailesh Shah and Shri Yadunath Chandhani i/by Shri Kunal Cheema for the Respondent. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 6TH MAY, 2011 P.C. . The Appeal from Order No.12 of 2005 is called out for final hearing. Papers of the disposed of Appeal from Order No.1099 of 2004 are produced. On the oral prayer made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, the order of dismissal of the said Appeal is set aside. Appeal from Order No.1099 of 2004 is restored to the file which is taken up for hearing along with Appeal from Order No.12 of 2005. Consequently, the ash 2 ao-12.05,ca,and-ao1099.04 Civil Application No.1565 of 2004 in Appeal from Order No.1099 of 2004 is also restored to the file. 2. The Cross Appeals are preferred by both, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, for challenging the order dated 5th November, 2004 passed by the Learned Trial Judge on a Notice of Motion for injunction taken out by the Plaintiff. Appeal From Order No.12 of 2005 is preferred by the Defendant and Appeal from Order No.1099 of 2004 is preferred by the original Plaintiff. The Appeals were admitted by this Court on 18th January, 2005. On the same day, the operation of the impugned order was stayed and an interim order which was passed in the earlier Appeal from Order No.842 of 2004 and Appeal from Order No.870 of 2004 was continued as the interim relief till the disposal of the Appeals. The said two Appeals were preferred against an ad-interim order passed in the Notice of Motion. Clause 3 of the interim order passed in Appeal From Order Nos. 842 of 2004 and 870 of 2004 reads thus : “3. Both parties are agreed tht the Motion has been fixed for hearing on 8th October 2004. Till then the parties would maintain status quo as of today, thereby the Plaintiffs will not physically undertake any construction activity on the suit premises and the Defendant is restrained from creating any third party rights or inducting any persons or creating any new tenancies in respect of the suit premises. However, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant may pursue their applications before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority during the pendency of the Motion. However, no physical construction activity will take place till the Motion is heard finally and disposed of.” ash 3 ao-12.05,ca,and-ao1099.04 3. In Appeal from Order No.12 of 2005, additional affidavit has been filed by the Appellant –original Defendant. It is pointed out that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority issued a Letter of Intent in respect of suit property on 20th February, 2003 in the name of the Defendant. The Original Plaintiff challenged the said Letter of Intent before the High Power Committee constituted under the orders of this Court and the High Power Committee by an order dated 21st March, 2009 upheld the Letter of Intent. It is pointed out that the Plaintiff has challenged the order of High Power Committee by filing a Writ Petition NO.1838 of 2009. It must be noted here that the order dated 4th October, 2004 which is passed in the earlier Appeals From Order No.842 of 2004 and 870 of 2004 permitted both the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pursue their applications before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority during the pendency of the Notice of Motion as both were claiming right to implement the Slum Redevelopment Scheme. 4. A reference will have to be made to the prayers made in the suit. The suit is based on the alleged agreement dated 19th January, 1995. The said Agreement was for sale of the suit property executed by the Defendant’s father in favour of the Plaintiff. The Suit is essentially for injunction restraining the Defendant from obstructing the development work allegedly carried out by the Plaintiff. Now there is a suit for specific performance filed by the Plaintiff on the Original Side of this Court for enforcing the alleged agreement. As the position stands today, now there is a Letter of Intent issued in favour of the Defendant which permits him to undertake slum redevelopment scheme on the suit property which is a ash 4 ao-12.05,ca,and-ao1099.04 “slum”. A Writ Petition filed by the Original Plaintiff for challenging the order of the High Power Committee is pending in this Court. Unless the Plaintiff succeeds in obtaining any prohibitory relief in respect of the Letter of Intent granted to the Defendant, the Defendant cannot be prevented from implementing the redevelopment scheme. Hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to operate which permits the Plaintiff to carry on work of development. In view of the subsequent events, only order which can be passed is of continuation of the interim relief granted earlier in this Appeal for a reasonable time to enable the Plaintiff to take steps as regards the Letter of Intent granted to the Defendant. The learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant prays that the interim order granted earlier may be continued only for a very short time. Hence the Appeals are disposed of by passing the following order :- ORDER (a) In view of the subsequent events, the order of stay of operation of the impugned order shall continue to operate till the disposal of the suit. However, to enable the Plaintiff to take appropriate steps, the interim relief directing that no physical construction activity shall be carried out on the suit property deserves to be extended till 31st August, 2011. It is made clear that the said order will come to an end on 31st August, 2011. (b) Needless to say that this Court has not made any ash 5 ao-12.05,ca,and-ao1099.04 adjudication as regards the Letter of Intent granted to the Defendant. The Appeals are accordingly disposed of. (c) Civil Application No. 13 of 2005 in AO No.12 of 2005 and Civil Application No. 1565 of 2004 in AO No.1099 of 2004 do not survive and the same are disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )