1 Acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2408 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 1801 OF 2007 Mahendra Gesco Develoeprs Ltd. ....Plaintiff. V/s. Mr. Dilip D. Sawant & Ors. ....Defendants. --- Mr. J.P. Sen a/w Ms. Pratibha Mehta i/b Little & Co., for the Plaintiff. Mr. S.M. Shettigar, for the Defendants. --- CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. :- 1. As recorded in the detailed ad-interim order dated 13.07.2007, the Plaintiff purchased the property on 22.03.2002 by a registered conveyance. This conveyance has not been challenged by any of the parties till date. 2. According to the Plaintiff the Defendants who are sued in a representative capacity had obstructed its possession of the suit property as well as the construction activities thereon. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants denies that they have ever obstructed the Plaintiff’s possession or construction. He further 2 states that the Defendants do not intend doing so in future either. Normally it would have been sufficient to accept the statement and dispose of the Notice of Motion on the basis thereof. However, this is a representative action and it is necessary therefore and an order therefore is desirable. 3. After the ad-interim order, there admittedly was no incident adversely affecting the Plaintiff. In view thereof, I do not consider it necessary at this stage to grant any reliefs in terms of prayer (b). The Plaintiff is at liberty to apply for the same in future, if necessary. 4. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) with liberty as aforesaid.