1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.684 OF 2010 M/s.Sapre Builders Pvt.Ltd. ..Appellant V/s. Shri.Nandkumar Dnyanoba Jadhav & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.S.V.Pitre for the Appellant. Mr.Mandar Limaye i/by Mr.Vaibhav Patankar for the Respondents. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 13TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Pitre, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Mandar Limaye, learned counsel for the Respondents. This appeal is directed against the exparte ad­interim order dated 3rd May, 2010 below Exhibit 5 in Misc.Application No.350 of 2010 passed by the learned District Judge­4, Pune, By that order, the appellant­original opponent is restrained from handing over possession of the suit tenements in breach of the development agreement dated 13th March, 2006. The learned district Judge issued notice to the Appellant and made it returnable on 7th June, 2010. 2. The Respondents had filed Misc.Application No.350 of 2010 u/s.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) on 29th April, 2010 praying for preventive injunction restraining the appellant herein from parting with the possession of any tenement constructed by it, in breach of the terms of said agreement and before delivery of possession of the tenements to them as per the terms of the said agreement. The application at Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction was 2 also filed on the same day. The Appellant herein resisted the application by filing the reply on 7th June, 2010 and the Respondents filed rejoinder to the said reply. 3. Mr.Pitre submitted that the exparte ad­interim injunction was obtained by the Respondents by suppressing several material facts. He submitted that the Respondents suppressed the fact of receiving huge amount of Rs.90,80,000/­ from the Appellant and the Respondents also suppressed the execution of the receipt by them on 22nd December, 2004 in favour of the Appellant. He submitted that the exparte ad­interim injunction granted by the learned District Judge is causing grave hardship, loss and prejudice to the Appellant and therefore it requires to be stayed. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Limaye, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Respondents received Rs.55,80,000/­ and not a single rupee over and above Rs.55,80,000/­. He further submitted that as per clause 3 of the receipt dated 22nd December, 2004 the Respondents agreed to return the amount of Rs.35 lakhs to the Appellant within two years or prior to receiving the possession of the commercial and residential premises that is to be constructed by the Appellant. He submitted that the Appellant has not handed over possession of these premises and thus has committed breach of the development agreement dated 13th March, 2006. If the exparte ad­ interim injunction is stayed, the Misc.Application No.350 of 2010 will be rendered infructuous. 5. During the Course of hearing of this appeal, I have been informed that 3 the learned District Judge has posted hearing of the application at Exh. 5 on 21st July, 2010. Considering the controversy between the parties and having due regard to the fact that the pleadings of the parties are complete and having further due regard to the fact that the application is posted for hearing on 21st July, 2010, I deem it appropriate not to express any opinion on the controversy between the parties as the same is required to be first adjudicated by the Court of first instance. In the fitness of things, it is necessary to request the learned District Judge to hear and decide the application filed by the Respondents at Exh.5 on or before 31st July, 2010. The parties have assured that they shall co­operate for disposal of the said application and they shall not apply for adjournment on any ground. 6. In view of this the learned District Judge is requested to decide the application at Exh.5 on or before 31st July, 2010 preferably by hearing the application on day to day basis. 7. As indicated earlier, by the impugned order the learned District Judge has granted exparte ad­interim injunction, and therefore, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for interfering in the matter. 8. Mr.Limaye states that till the disposal of the application at Exh.5, he will not press application under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 9. With the above observations, appeal is dismissed. However in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)