Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.192 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.166 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.762 OF 2007 Mukush V Panjwani ; Appellant. Versus Pholomena Loreta D’Silva and ors. : Respondents. Mr.Shailesh Shah i/by Madhukar Munim & Co. for the Appellant. None for Respondent Nos.1 to 12. Mr.Ishwariprashad Bagaria for the Respondent No.13. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2009 P.C. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 10/02/2009 passed in Notice of Motion No.166 of 2009 in Suit No. 762 of 2007. The Plaintiff has filed the said suit for specific performance of two Memoranda of Understanding executed by and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and Defendant Nos. 5 to 11. In the aforesaid Notice of Motion the Plaintiff prayed for interim injunction restraining the Defendants from creating any third party interest and proceeding further in connection with development of the property in question. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the said notice of motion and vacated the ad interim order granted earlier on 22.10.2008. 2. The learned counsel Mr.Shah for the Appellant after taking instructions from his client, who is personally present in court today, submitted that in case appropriate directions are given for expediting the suit as well as for protecting the right of the present plaintiff to the effect that in case any development is carried out by the concerned defendants, the same should be subject to the result of the suit, he may not press the present appeal further. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.13 Mr.Ishwariprasad Bagaria submitted that he has no objection if appropriate direction is given in this behalf. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the pending suit as early as poissible and preferably within a period of one year from today. In the mean while, if any development is carried out by the concerned Defendants, the same shall be subject to the result of the pending suit. In the meanwhile if the property is transferred to any third party then in that case, before entering into any agreement with such purchasers, the defendants should give intimation to such purchasers about pendency of the suit, so that the said purchasers can know that the property in question is the subject matter of the pending suit. It is made clear that whatever subsequent transactions entered into in respect of the suit property, the same shall be subject to the final outcome of the suit. It is clarified that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is to be treated as tentative in nature as the suit is ultimately required to be decided on its own merits and as per the evidence on record. It is further clarified that even if the concerned defendants develope the property during pendency of the present suit, they shall not claim any equity on the ground that they have invested large amount in developing the property and such development should be subject to the result of the present suit. With the aforesaid directions the Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. [R.C.CHAVAN, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR,J]