IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3428 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.107 OF 1995. Navin Kamlashankar Joshi. ..Plaintiff. versus Vijay M. Joshi & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Mr. Mehul Shah, i/b. Kanga & Co., for the Plaintiff. Mr. Chetan Kapadia a/w Radhika Kalpatrai & Bharati Bhagwat, i/b. Parimal K. Shroff & Co., for the Defendant Nos.3 & 4. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 15th October 2008. : 15th October 2008. : 15th October 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the third and the fourth defendants in support of the notice of motion and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. 2. Considering the nature of relief sought and considering the earlier orders passed by this Court which are annexed to the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, the same is taken up for final disposal at the stage of consideration of ad-interim relief. 2 3. My attention has been invited to order dated 4th February 2008 passed by this Court in notice of motion no.68 of 2008. A similar the relief which is prayed for in this notice of motion was granted by this court under the said order dated 4th February 2008. Apart from this order, there are earlier orders passed by this court granting similar reliefs during the pendency of the present suit. The objection of the plaintiff is that the premises are sought to be given on a leave and license basis for a consideration which is much less than the consideration consistent with the market value of the premises in dispute and therefore, the consideration/ license fee should be ordered to be enhanced. The submission is that if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, he is entitled to mesne profits. 4. This apprehension is taken care of in order dated 4th February 2008 by this Court by observing that if any question of quantification of the mesne profits arises, the quantification shall be made in accordance with law and the licence fee which has been provided in the agreement of the license to be executed by the third and the fourth defendants will not be the conclusive evidence of the true value of the compensation that is realisable. 3 5. The aforesaid observation made by this Court in order dated 4th February 2008 sufficiently takes care of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. 6. Subject to the clarification made in order dated 4th February 2008 in notice of motion no.68 of 2008, the notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). It is, however, made clear that the notice of motion is made absolute subject to same terms and conditions as in order dated 29th July 2002 passed by this Court which is referred in the aforesaid order dated 4th February 2008. 7. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. 8. It is obvious that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights of the parties to the suit. All contentions on merits of the suit are kept open. (A.S.Oka,J)