1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. Notice of Motion No.3223 of 2006 In Suit No.2586 of 2006 Mr.Ranjit Singh Brij Vallabh Singh Sokhi. .. Plaintiff v/s. M/s.Shanil Builders & ors. .. Defendants Mr.R.K. Sharma i/by Rahul Karnik & Mr.Anoopkumar Sharma for Plaintiff. Mr.Kharawala i/by R.K. Associates for Deft.Nos.4 , 5 to 10. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 25 th July, 2008 P.C. : 1. The Plaintiff claims to be the purchaser of Flat No.B-103 in the suit building under an Agreement executed by the Plaintiff with Defendants 1, 2 and 3 who are the developers of the suit property. The Agreement is dated 21.1.2003. It is registered on 21.1.2003. It is executed by and between the Plaintiff and Defendants 1, 2 and 3. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are stated to have been served through courier. The acknowledgment of the courier is not produced. This Suit is filed not only against Defendants 1, 2 and 3 who are the developers but also against Defendants 4 and 10 who are the owners of the suit plot of land and who entered into an 2 Agreement with the developers to develop the suit plot of land. Under that Agreement the developers were to construct the suit building at their own costs and bring in TDR, if required in consideration for which they were to get 45% of the flats constructed for sale by them. The remaining 55% of the flats were to be constructed and given to Defendants 4 to 10 who are the owners. 2. The developers and the owners entered into certain Consent Terms in a Suit filed by the owners against the developers in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay being Suit No.1659 of 2002 in which they demarcated the shares of the owners and the developers. 3. The averment in paragraph 8 of the Plaint shows that the Suit and the Consent Terms were filed to demarcate the preferential 55% share in the constructed area of the building for the owners. The Plaintiff has craved leave to rely upon the proceedings in the said Suit. Copy of the Consent Terms is not produced by the Plaintiff. 4. The Consent Terms were executed on 8.8.2002. The Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendants 1, 2 and 3 is after the said Consent Terms i.e. On 21.1.2003. The Defendants, who executed the Agreement, were, therefore, 3 bound by the Consent Terms. Nevertheless, those Defendants have entered into the Agreements with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's rights are essentially against Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 with whom they have entered into the suit Agreement. The Plaintiff cannot claim any rights against the owners in the suit premises. 5. The Plaintiff has relied upon another Suit being filed by certain flat purchasers against the developers as well as the owners being Suit No.631 of 2003 filed in this Court. In that Suit the Defendants entered into certain Consent Terms on 6.5.2004 i.e. after the Plaintiff's Agreement. The Plaintiff is not concerned with those Consent Terms. There have been further proceedings taken out in that Suit in which further orders have been passed but with which also this Plaintiff is not concerned. 6. The Plaintiff's right, if any, accrues only against Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3. The Plaintiff cannot claim any injunction or any other right against Defendant Nos.4 to 10. 7. A Court Receiver has been appointed in respect of the entire suit property which is under construction. The Plaintiff applies for being an agent of the Court Receiver in respect of Flat No.B-103. It is seen that unfortunately the Plaintiff's 4 Agreement is after the Consent Terms in BCCC Suit dated 8.8.2002 under which Defendants 1, 2 and 3 had no right, title and interest in Flat No.B-103 which they have sought to sell to the Plaintiff thereafter. Consequently, the Plaintiff cannot be appointed the Court Receiver's agent in respect of the flat which has gone to the preferential 55% share of the owners. 8. The Notice of Motion is dismissed. No order as to costs. The status quo order, which has been passed earlier, is continued for one week on the application of the Plaintiff's Advocate. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.]