: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.678 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.787 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1531 OF 2008 TCI Telenet Solutions Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ....Appellants V/s. Millennium Motors Pvt.Ltd. ....Respondent Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Mr.S.S. Kanetkar for the Appellants. Mr.A.K.J. Panicker i/b M/s.Ajay Panicker & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 19TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. Admit and heard finally. 2. The Appeal is against the order of the learned Judge rejecting an application for injunction in a suit for specific performance. 3. The learned Judge has observed that the suit agreement has not been executed by Defendant No.2. This appears to be incorrect. It is nobodies case : 2 : that the agreement was not executed. What is challenged is the circumstance in which it was executed. For instance it is alleged that the agreement was executed under a misapprehension on the part of Defendant No.2 about the nature of the document. Defendant No.2 is the owner of the suit land. 4. In these circumstances, the Appellants rights in the suit require to be protected. 5. Mr.Panicker, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents states that the Respondents have no intention at present of selling or otherwise disposing of the suit property. This being a suit for specific performance and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellants/Plaintiffs are only entitled to protection of the property without restraining the Defendants from utilizing the same in a manner which would not prejudice the Appellants rights in the event of the Appellants succeeding in the suit. 6. Admittedly, a leave and licence agreement dated 6.7.2002 was created in favour of the Appellants by Defendant No.1 in respect of an area of 29,250 sq.ft. of land with a constructed area of 22,535 : 3 : sq.ft. read with a letter also dated 6.7.2002. In respect of this area, the learned counsel for the Respondents makes a statement that the Appellants will not be dispossessed except by due process of law. The statement is accepted. 7. It is alleged on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellants have forcibly dispossessed M/s.Automart India Ltd. in whose favour Defendant No.1 has created a leave and licence agreement in respect of a built up area of 2865 sq.ft. and parking area of about 9600 sq.ft. This is denied by the Appellants. Be that as it may, the Appellants have no rights at present in respect of the said property. The Appellants will therefore not interfere in any manner whatsoever even in respect of this part of the suit property pending the hearing of the suit. If the Appellants are in possession of any part of the suit property other than the part of the suit property covered by the leave and licence agreement dated 6.7.2002, the Appellants shall forthwith vacate the same and hand over the same to the Defendants. 8. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order and the Civil Application are disposed of by the following further order :- : 4 : i). The impugned order is set-aside. ii). Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Respondents shall not sell, alienate, encumber or part with possession of the suit property without the leave of the Court except as stated hereafter. iii). The Respondents shall be entitled to use the entire suit property including by putting up construction thereon or giving the land and/or structures thereon or any portions thereof on leave and licence basis. . The construction hereafter if any, shall be entirely at the risk of the Respondents and shall be subject to the final result in the suit. On the basis of such construction, if any, no equities shall be claimed by the Respondents. The leave and licence agreement may be entered into by the Respondents subject to the licensee filing an affidavit in the trial Court agreeing to be bound by the result in the suit without being impleaded therein. It will not be necessary to implead the licensee as a party. iv). The Respondents shall not dispossess or interfere with the possession of the Appellants in : 5 : respect of the property given by the leave and licence agreement dated 6.7.2002 read with the letter dated 6.7.2002 (at page 113 of the additional compilation) except by due process of law. v). Any application including interlocutory applications in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the said leave and licence agreement dated 6.7.2002 shall be made in appropriate proceedings adopted or to be adopted by the Respondents. The Civil Application No.1531 of 2008 is therefore allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to make an application including for the reliefs claimed therein in independent proceedings adopted or to be adopted by the Respondents which will be decided on their own merits without being influenced by the impugned order or by this order. vi). Needless to observe that the trial Court will decide the suit without being influenced by either the impugned order or this order. vii). The Appeal from Order and both the Civil Applications are accordingly disposed of.