1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 285 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 46 OF 2009 Sony Realtor Pvt. Ltd. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Sun Krish Developers and Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr. Counsel i/b. DSK Legal for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Ganesh i/b. Ganesh & Co. for Defendants 1 to 3. Mr. Ramesh A. Karale for Defendant 5. Ms. Madhuri V. Gaikwad for Defendant 6. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 21st JULY 2009. P.C. :- When this Motion was placed before me today, Mr. Ganesh, appearing for Defendants 1 to 3 in all fairness states that the Writ Petition challenging the order of the appropriate authority has been decided and the matter is remitted back to the appropriate authority by this Court. 2. Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs does not dispute this position. However, he urges that the order dated 22nd June 2009 grants him liberty to 2 move after the proceedings in the Writ Petition are concluded. 3. After having perused the order passed earlier and noting the fact that the matter is remitted back to the appropriate authority, until the appropriate authority renders its decision, there is no question of the property being dealt with and in any event the order passed on 22nd June 2009 sufficiently safe-guards the interest of the Plaintiffs at this stage. Since it is stated that the appropriate authority will take some time for reconsidering the matter, interest of justice would be sub- served if this Notice of Motion is disposed off with liberty to the Plaintiffs to apply for such interim reliefs as are permissible in law after Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 intimate to the Plaintiffs’ Advocate the decision of the appropriate authority. All contentions of both sides are kept open. The ad-interim order granted on 22nd June 2009 to continue for a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the communication by the Plaintiffs’ Advocate. No order as to costs. 4. There is a request made that there are two documents with Defendant No.6, who is a practicing Advocate. There is no other relief claimed save and except a direction to him to deposit these documents in the Court in a sealed cover. Neither the Plaintiffs nor other parties to this Suit are seeking inspection of these documents after their deposit in this Court, at this stage. No prejudice would be caused therefore if it is directed that Defendant No.6 shall deposit the two documents 3 which are stated to be in his custody with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The Prothonotary and Senior Master to keep the documents in safe custody until further orders and directions of this Court. Liberty to the Plaintiffs to apply for inspection of these documents after the same are deposited in this Court and Defendant No.6 gives intimation to the parties in that behalf. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)