1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2500 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2138 OF 2008 Mr. Sunil Jain and anr. ..... Plaintiffs. V/s Mr. Ebrahim Valibhai Sawarkundalawala & ors.l ...... Defendants. ----- Mr. S.P. Srivastava for the plaintiffs. Mr. J.P. Sen i/b M/s Federal & Rashmikant for defendant Nos. 14 and 15. ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 24TH JULY, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 14 and 15. 2. Plaintiffs have filed this suit, seeking following reliefs:- 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 executed an agreement for sale in respect of the suit properties on 1/9/1968 and possession was also handed over to the plaintiffs. He has submitted that, thereafter, a possession receipt was also given by the original owner. The original owner also wrote a letter to the District Inspector of 2 Land Records, requesting him to enter the name of the plaintiffs in the land records and, accordingly, the names of the plaintiffs were entered in the other rights column of 7 x 12 extract. It is submitted that defendant No.1 obtained a friendly loan from the Plaintiff and since defendant No.1 was not in a position to pay the same the agreement dated 22/11/2001 for development was entered into by and between defendant No.1 and the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that in spite of the plaintiffs being in possession, defendants are trying to create third party rights and TDR in respect of the said land is likely to be utilized by defendant Nos. 14 and 15. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants on the other hand submitted that the agreement for sale is in respect of Survey No.208, Hissa No.15 and not Hissa No.14 which is a suit property mentioned in the plaint. It is submitted that in the application which was filed by the owners, they have mentioned Hissa No.15. It is submitted that plaintiffs do not have any right in respect of the said property. He submitted that, on the other hand, defendant Nos. 14 and 15 have, by virtue of the consent terms which were filed in this Court between original owners and defendant No.14 and 15 have become owners of the said property and, accordingly, conveyance was also registered on 09/03/2006. He submitted that in view of the conveyance, necessary correction has been made in 7 x 12 extract and names of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs have 3 been deleted. He further submits that the plaintiffs, initially, had filed a suit in the City Civil Court. Ad-interim relief was refused in the said suit. Appeal from order which was filed against the said order was also withdrawn by the plaintiffs and, thereafter, the suit was held to be not maintainable and, accordingly, present suit has been filed. He submits that no case, therefore, is made out for grant of any interim order. 5. There is much substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the defendant Nos. 14 and 15. The record clearly indicates that the agreement which was allegedly executed by the Plaintiffs with Defendant No.1 is in respect of Hissa No.15 and not Hissa No.14 which is described as suit property in the plaint. The other documents also clearly indicate that the plaintiffs do not have any rights over the said property viz. Survey No.208, Hissa No.14. No case is therefore made out by the plaintiffs for grant of interim order in the suit. 6. Notice of Motion is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. V.M. KANADE, J. 4