-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6671 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.6671 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.6671 OF 2007 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.56 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.56 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.56 OF 2008 Dhansuklal A. Parekh & Others ...Applicants vs. Godrej Boyce Mfg. Pvt.Ltd.& Ors. ...Respondents Mr.D.S.Parikh a/w Mr.J.K.Mitra i/b M/s.Vigil Juris for the Applicants Mr.Aspy Chinoy, Senior Counsel with Mr.N.G.Thakkar, senior counsel with Mr.Zal T.A. i/b Bachubhai Munia & Co. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 28, 2008. : MARCH 28, 2008. : MARCH 28, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the Applicants who are the Appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. 2. The Appeal preferred by the Appellants/origial plaintiffs Nos.1,3 and 4 has been already admitted for final hearing. When a query was made by this court to the learned senior Counsel for the Appellants/Applicants whether the Appellants intend to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement pleaded in the suit, on instructions he makes a statement that the Applicants/Appellants will file a suit for specific performance within a period of 4 months from today. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appliacnts pointed out that -2- there was an interim relif operating in favour of the Applicants during the pendency of the suit and after the admission of the Appeal, the said interim relief deserves to continue till the final disposal of the Appeal. 3. The learned senior counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 has invited my attention to the averments made in the plaint. He has also taken me through the relevant paragraphs of the Affidavit in lieu of evidence of the plaintiffs as well as answers given in the cross examination. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the contesting Respondents is that the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation. 4. My attention has been invited to the paragraph 3 of the Application which shows that there was an interim injunction operating in favour of the Appellants during the pendency of the suit. Prayer (a) of this Application seeks more or less same relief which was operating during the pendency of the suit. Now, a statement has been made by the learned senior counsel for the Applicants that a suit for specific performance will be filed within a period of four months from today. It is obvious that the Applicants will have to pray for the interim relief which is prayed for in this Application in the substantive suit. However, as the interim relief was operating till the final disposal of the suit, I am inclined to continue the same till 29th August 2008 to enable the -3- Applicants to apply for appropriate interim relief in the suit which they propose to file. 5. It is made clear that the protection which is granted by this court in this Civil Application is only on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Applicants that within a period of four months from today they intend to file a substantive suit for specific performance. 6. Hence, Civil Application is disposed of by passing the following order : i) The interim order which was in force till the final disposal of the suit will continue to operate till 29th August 2008. ii) It is obvious that the prayer for interim relief which may be made by the Applicants/Appellants in the substantive suit will be considered on its own merits. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE