IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.562 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1791 of 1996 A/w NOTICE OF MOTION NO.898 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1791 OF 1996 Smt. Rashmi Pankaj Kesharia, .. Plaintiff Vs Manesh Rajnikant Doshi, .. Defendant. Mr Shailesh Shah i/b U.L.Shah, for the plaintiff. Mr Simil Purohit i/b Ms Pragna Gala for the defendant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 22.04.2008 DATE : 22.04.2008 DATE : 22.04.2008 PC: 1. Notice of Motion No.562 of 2008 is taken out by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment, whereas Notice of Motion No.898 of 2008 is taken out by the defendant allowing him to withdraw his statements and the undertaking given to this court and recorded in the order dated 12.1.1998 and to relieve him of the same. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first Motion is taken out by the plaintiff on a definite information received by him that negotiations for redevelopment of the property, wherein a flat of the defendant, which is a subject matter of the Suit/Motion, are in progress and if that goes through the defendant will hand over possession of the flat to the developer. The flat of the defendant is in the society which, according to the plaintiff, is negotiating with the developer and, as a result thereof, the defendant will be entitled for substantial amount as consideration from the developer. Mr Purohit, learned counsel for the defendant, at the outset, on instructions from his client who is present in the court, submits that the redevelopment process is not going through. He further submits that, in future, if the society decides to negotiate either with the same developer or any other developers, the defendant shall seek permission of this court before consenting for redevelopment of the property where his flat is situated. That apart, learned counsel for the defendant also invited my attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Raman Tech & Process Engg. Co. Vs. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302 and to sections 13,16 and 17 of the Securities Contract Regulation Act and also section 12 of the SEBI Act and expressed his desire to make submissions on merits also. Insofar as this submission is concerned, the learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed the same vehemently inviting my attention to an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.1.1998 disposing of Notice of Motion No.1411 of 1996 and submitted that it is not open to the defendant to make submissions on merits since no such submissions were advanced when the earlier Notice of Motion with similar reliefs was taken out by the plaintiff and, in fact, the defendant had made a statement that he would not deal with or dispose of or create any third party rights in respect of the said flat and in view thereof the Notice of Motion was disposed of by accepting the said statement. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the statements made by the learned counsel for the defendant, on instructions from his client, I am satisfied that I need not examine the motion on merits and the ends of justice would be met by the following order. (a) The defendant shall file an undertaking in this Court within a period of four weeks from today stating that the negotiations for redevelopment, which were going on, on the basis of which this Motion was filed, is not going through and if there is any such proposal in future either with the same developer or any other developers, he shall not either enter into any agreement with the developer or even give his consent to the society for such development without permission of this court. He shall further state that he shall not deal with or dispose of or create any third party rights in respect of the said flat without permission of this Court. If the defendant fails to file the undertaking, as aforementioned, the Motion shall stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (c). In the circumstances, both the Notice of Motions stand disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)