pvr 1 A48-11 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.48 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3398 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.3056 OF 2010 Bina Coatings Pvt.Ltd. ...Appellant vs. 1.Madhuri Milap Joshi & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Snehal Shah i/b. M/s.Pramodkumar & Co., for Appellant. Mr.P.K.Samdhani, Sr.Advocate i/b. T.N.Tripathi & Co., for Respondent no.1. Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. R.S.Sharma & Associates, for Respondent nos.2 to 5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 13th June,2011 pvr 2 A48-11 P.C.: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge declining to grant ad-interim order. Admittedly, there was a development agreement between the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 5 who are the owners of the land. It appears from the record that at least about Rs.95 lakhs have been paid by the plaintiff to defendant nos. 1 to 5. There is also payment of about Rs.62 lakhs made to defendant no.6. Defendant no.6 is a partnership firm of which defendant nos. 1 to 5 are the partners. They are also the owners of the land. It was claimed by the defendants that payment of Rs.62 lakhs made to defendant no.6 is not towards this transaction, but defendant nos.1 to 5 who are the partners have not disclosed as to in what transaction that payment has been made. The defendants, it appears, have appropriated substantial amount received from the plaintiff. It was stated before us that as soon as the ad- pvr 3 A48-11 interim order was declined, the defendants have entered into a development agreement with third party on 23.3.2011. It is common ground that there is an order passed by the Small Causes Court which is in the field for several years directing the parties to maintain status quo. In our opinion, therefore, considering that substantial amount has been received by the defendants from the plaintiff which they have not even offered to the plaintiff when the agreement was terminated, and also considering that the defendants have further entered into the agreement, the learned Single Judge should have restrained the defendants from further transferring the property. However, now that a statement has been made that the defendants have already transferred the property further, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The order impugned in the appeal is set aside. The learned Single Judge is requested to pvr 4 A48-11 hear and dispose of the notice of motion as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of Eight weeks from today. Till the notice of motion is finally disposed of, the defendants and any person claiming through them shall not raise any construction on the property. Appeal is disposed of. As the appeal is disposed of, notice of motion no.178 of 2011 does not survive for consideration, it is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR,J.)