rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4368 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4368 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4368 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT NO.2504 OF 2006 SUIT NO.2504 OF 2006 SUIT NO.2504 OF 2006 Satish Buddhadeo, Proprietor Through M/s.S.B.Advertising .. Plaintiffs Vs. The Union of India & Anr. .. Defendants Mr.S.Venkatesh i/b.Majeed Menon & Associates for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondent. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of damages. The Plaintiffs claim that sum of Rs.4,95,000/- was deposited by them with Defendants by way of rental for six months and Rs.66,950/- were paid by the Plaintiffs as a security deposit and anticipatory electric charges. 2. The Plaintiffs have prayed for return of the said amounts namely Rs.4,95,000/- and Rs.66,950/-. Considering the frame of the suit, I am inclined to ( 2 ) observe that the question of return of the aforesaid amounts even if they have been deposited by the Plaintiffs with the Defendants cannot be considered as the purpose for which the amounts were deposited were for a different purposes. The Plaintiffs cannot mix up the question of seeking damages with interest in the nature of rented or security deposit. If the Plaintiff wants to get back these amounts, they are free to make the representation or institute separate legal proceedings. The relief sought is misconceived and cannot be granted. Hence, the order : :: O R D E R :: :: O R D E R :: :: O R D E R :: i. Notice of Motion is disposed of. ii. In the facts and circumstances of the matter, there should be no orders as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO,J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.)