1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1839 of 2008 IN SUIT NO. 1710 OF 1989 Mrs. Lassie Mendonsia & 5 ors. ...Plaintiffs v/s. Anthony Mathew D Lima & 12 ors. ...Defendants Mr. V.Y.Sanglikar for the plaintiffs. Mr. Naushad Engineer i/b. N.K.Salian for defendant no. 13. Mr. G.V.Murti i/b. M/s. Murti & Ass. for defendants 7 to 11. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- January 06, 2010. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. By this motion, the Defendant No. 13 prays for clarification/modification of order dated October 22, 2007 to the effect that the same does not operate against the said defendant. 2. It is noticed that the order dated October 22, 2007 was passed on Notice of Motion no. 3708/2006-which motion was never served on Defendant No. 13, 2 inspite of direction passed in that behalf on September 20, 2007 in Chamber Summons No. 1413 of 2007. That position is not disputed by the Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs. 3. In other words, the order dated 22nd October, 2007 was invited behind the back of Defendant No. 13. The fact that the said Defendant was served with the Chamber Summons did not extricate the Plaintiffs from serving the Notice of Motion on him and more so to invite any order behind his back. Besides, for the nature of observation made in the order dated October 22, 2007, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the effect of the said order was intended to operate only against Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 who were appearing in the said proceedings and represented through Counsels. Significantly, the Defendant No. 13 is claiming through Defendant No. 12. From the order dated October 20, 2006 passed in the same Notice of Motion, it leaves no manner of doubt that no interim order was operating against Defendant No. 12 at any time. Whereas, the order passed on October 22, 2007 was only to restate the position flowing from the earlier order dated January 21, 1991. Neither Defendant No. 12 nor the Defendant No. 13 was party to the proceedings at the relevant time when the order dated January 21, 1991 was passed. Further, the order dated October 20, 2006 has noticed that Defendant No. 12 purchased the stated property strictly in 3 accordance with the order of this Court. 4. Accordingly, the present Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Indeed, this will not preclude the Plaintiffs from taking recourse to fresh notice of motion against Defendant No. 13 for appropriate relief as may be advised. That motion will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)