1 mss CHS967 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 967 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 2763 OF 2009 BHAGAT HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT PVT.LTD. .. PLAINTIFF Vs. KARM YOFGI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. .. DEFENDANTS Mr. Tushad Cooper a/w S. J.Khera for the plaintiff Ms. Saumya Srikrishna a/w Rohit Shetty for D-1,2. Ms. Prachi Khandge i/b M. P. Vashi & Ass. For D-10,11. Ms. M. S. Parasnis for R-13, 14, 16. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 9/1/2012 P.C. Heard Mr. Cooper on behalf of decree holders original plaintiff. 2. Ms. Parasnis appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 13, 14 and 16 waives service. She points out that these respondents have filed a suit in this court being Suit (L) No. 2093 of 2011. She submits that respondent 2 mss CHS967 Nos. 13, 14 have also filed a suit in this court seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 1st July, 2004. She submits that an application for interim relief was made in the said suit by way of notice of motion. 3. In the light of the statement that is made by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the hearing of the said notice of motion for interim relief, she prays that any order being passed on this chamber summons would vitally affect the rights of the said respondents. In any event she submits that occupation certificate has not been granted. These respondents have not been put in possession. The statement made and the interim order in the suit at this stage sufficiently protects all parties according to her. 4. She also states that there is another flat namely Flat No. D-701. In any event she submits that the flat which is said to be purchased by respondent Nos. 13 and 14 is not the flat pertaining to which any relief has been sought . She then submits that Respondent No. 16 is seeking to purchase and has purchased the flat No. D-701 from defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and he has filed a suit seeking identical relief in this suit. Notice of Motion for interim relief has been moved in which an ad-interim order has been passed on 11th July, 2001. 3 mss CHS967 5. Mr. Cooper submits that not only the flats mentioned in prayer clause specifically but all those which are set out in the schedule Exh.-X to the affidavit-in-support of chamber summons are involved and the decree holder is seeking reliefs in relation to these flats as well. Mr. Cooper submits that huge amounts are due and payable under the consent decree and the decree itself records that in default the flats can be proceeded against on the basis that the decree is a mortgage decree. 6. In the light of the request that is made and considering the wide nature of the relief, interest of justice will be served, if before passing any orders on this chamber summons, notices are issued to the respondents save and except respondent Nos. 13,14 and 16 returnable after four weeks from today. In the meanwhile in relation to the flats that are covered by the orders passed in the suit there will be no ad-interim order at this stage. 7. S.O. for four weeks. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)