1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APEAL NO. 96 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3052 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2575 OF 2008 Kishan S/o. Sanwarmal Kedia. .. Appellant. Vs. Nisha A. Rebello & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the appellant. Mr. Om Prakash Shukla for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. : 2 Heard. 2. This appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission. The appellant-original plaintiff has preferred this appeal impugning the ad-interim order passed on October 13, 2008 in notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff for seeking interim possession of the flat in question which is the suit property. 3. The suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The main issue between the contesting parties appears to be that who has purchased the flat and who is put in possession. 4. It appears that the original defendant nos. 1 and 6 being husband and wife have sold the flat to the plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 to 5. The defendants have a prior agreement for sale but the plaintiff appears to have a sale deed registered on 25.1.2008 whereas the sale deed of the defendants-purchasers came to be registered on 20.9.2008. 5. It is not in dispute that both the sales are executed with the parties by the owner of the flat i.e., Nisha A. Rebello. The question is about who was put in possession or whether the plaintiff has been 3 dispossessed by respondents-defendant nos 2 to 5. The learned Single Judge while considering the grant of ad-interim relief has observed that the nature of relief sought by the appellant-plaintiff is of drastic nature i.e. it would oust the respondents-defendants purchasers from the premises and, therefore, at this stage it did not think it proper to disturb the possession of the respondents-defendants. But the impugned order sufficiently preserves the interest of the parties in respect of the suit flat. 6. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned order as the notice of motion is yet to be finally decided this being an ad-interim order. Before we part with this order, we may, by way of caution, observe that the learned Single Judge would not be influenced by the observations made while passing the ad-interim order particularly in so far as the question of evidence on record relating to payment of full consideration by the plaintiff to the 1st and 6th defendant i.e. the original owner of the flat and her husband. With this observation, we dismiss the appeal. 7. The request made by the learned counsel for the appellant -original plaintiff to expedite the hearing of the notice of motion / suit cannot be considered. It will be open for the parties to move the 4 learned Single Judge to get the notice of motion expeditiously disposed of as per the convenience of the Court. ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)