: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.221 OF 2008 WITH SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO.727 OF 2007 Dev Bhoomi Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers Union & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Jain with Mr.Manish Desai with Ms.Sawjanya Menon with Ms.Sutapa Saha i/b.Mr.Nirmal Devnani for the Appellant. Mr.S.M.Oak with Mrs.Gayatri Singh for Respondent No.1. Mr.Avinash Jalisatgi for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : Prayers (a) and (b) in the suit read as under :- "(a) That it be declared that Plaintiff is entitled for dismantling, demolition of plant and machineries and all other allied activities and removal of scrap thereof from the suit property without any obstructions, hurdles and hindrances from the alleged workmen of defendant No.3 being members of the Defendant No.1 and that it be further declared that Plaintiff is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/= being : 2 : losses caused to the Plaintiff due to unlawful acts of the members of the Defendant No.1 and be further declared that plaintiff is entitled to compensation @ Rs. 5,00,000/= per month from the date of filing the suit till the compliances are duly made by the defendant No.1 for quite and peaceful use and occupation of the property by the plaintiff. (b) That the Defendant No.1 and 3, their members, employees, workers, servants, agents, members and representatives and any other person claiming through the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from disturbing, interfering or intermeadling with the quite, peaceful process of dismantling of plants and machineries, removal, lifting and carting away of the scrap materials from the suit property and also be restrained from threatening in any manner the persons working at the suit premises from carrying out dismantling, and removal of scrap materials from the suit premises and for that purpose Police authorities be directed to provide protection under supervision of Higher grade Police Personnel." 2. The said property belonged to Respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 Assett Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL), was the secured creditor inter-alia in respect of the said property. ARCIL sold the same in exercise of its powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, : 3 : 2002. The Appellant/Plaintiff purchased the same and has paid the entire consideration as evidenced by a sale certificate dated 15.6.2007. 3. The Applicant alleged that the members of the first Respondent are taking the law into their own hands and preventing the Plaintiff from dealing with the moveable properties which now belong to the Plaintiff. Mr.Oak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 denied the same and stated that Defendant No.1 and its members have not and will not take law into their own hands. He stated that Respondent No.1 and its members would only act in accordance with law for protecting their alleged rights in respect inter-alia of the suit property. The statements are accepted. 4. Mr.Oak further contends that there is in fact an injunction restraining the sale of the said properties issued by the Industrial Court at Thane. Admittedly however, to those proceedings, neither the Plaintiff/Appellant nor ARCIL were parties. In fact, applications were made in the complaints for impleading ARCIL but the same were rejected. 5. The statement by and on behalf of Respondent : 4 : No.1 that it would act in accordance with law would normally suffice. However, the Appellant seeks an order of this Court permitting the Plaintiff to deal with the said property in such manner as it desires. 6. I am not inclined to grant such an order at this stage. This would really entail decreeing the suit at this stage. I must clarify however that I am not preventing the Plaintiff from exercising its rights qua the said properties in any manner. All that I say is that I am not inclined to pass a mandatory order as sought at this stage, especially, in view of the statements made by Mr.Oak. Moreover, such an order would prevent the first Respondent from seeking orders for the enforcement of their rights in accordance with law. 7. I must clarify that I do not for a moment suggest that Mr.Dhakephalkar’s submissions are not without great force. Indeed, as rightly pointed out by him, Respondent No.1 has even filed a Writ Petition seeking an order against ARCIL qua the sale proceeds which have been recovered by it. The Appellant has admittedly paid the entire sale consideration to ARCIL. I have not considered his submissions only in view of what I have already said : 5 : and in view of the order expediting the suit that I intend passing. 8. The Appeal from Order stands disposed of subject to what is recorded herein. As the issue involved herein is of general importance, the trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 31.8.2008.