NMS1046-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1046 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.612 OF 2009 Jagannath Gupta & Ors. .. Plaintiffs Versus Vishwanath Sumer Sharma .. Defendant Mr.Anil Yadav i/b. D.R.Shah for plaintiffs Mr.Deepak Deshmukh with Shaileesh Kumar i/b. K.P.Tiwari & Co. for defendant. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6th October 2010. P.C.: 1] In this notice of motion on 7th July 2009, this Court made an ad- interim order after hearing both sides and by assigning reasons. There is no reason why this order should not be continued till hearing and final disposal of the suit. More so, because it causes no prejudice to either parties. However, my attention is invited to prayer clause (a) of the notice of motion as granted. There the words “dealing with” are NMS1046-09 2 appearing, which cause some difficulty. However, it is stated that the order of injunction also prohibits collection of rent from tenants. 2] It is clarified that the order does not prevent the defendant from collecting rent and to the extent the words “dealing with” shall stand deleted accordingly. However, there is dispute between the parties with regard to the share and, therefore, the defendant after collecting rent from the tenants, shall deposit 50% of the same in this Court per month, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties. The defendants’ Advocate states that he has not collected rent from the date of the ad-interim order but if the rent is collected by him, then, he shall deposit 50% of the total amount collected, as directed from the date of the ad-interim order. Subject to this clarification motion is made absolute in terms of ad-interim order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)