1 673.10-ao-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 673 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 862 OF 2010 M/s.Aditya Developers. ... Applicant. V/s. M/s.Paranjpe Construction Co. and others. ... Respondents. Birendra Saraf with Suhas Patil and Ms.Darshana Gupta i/b. Navdeep Vora & Associates for the appellant. Ms.Swati Sawant i/b. Dhaval Patil for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. H.J.Dedhia, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.5 and 6. A.G.Damle for the intervener. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 16th September 2011. P.C. : By consent of parties this appeal from order can be disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The appellant is taking exception to the order passed below Exh.5 in Special Civil suit No.13/2010 decided by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai on 30th April 2011. The application tendered by 2 673.10-ao-- the plaintiff, seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling, alienating, encumbering, transferring, creating third party rights or interest in respect of suit property until disposal of the suit, has been turned down by the trial Court. It is not necessary to go into the details of the factual matrix while dealing with this appeal from order. Suffice it to note that memorandum of understanding was arrived at between respondent No.1 i.e. original defendant No.1 and the appellant/ original plaintiff on 12th December 2006 in respect of development of disputed property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that F.S.I. of 20 lakh sq.ft. was passed on to him under the memorandum of understanding by defendant No.1. It is the understanding reached between the parties that the amount paid by the plaintiff shall be utilised by defendant No.1 for paying back the dues of the flat purchasers for securing cancellation deeds. It transpired that defendant No.1 did not pay dues of the flat purchasers. There was an agreement of sale executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in respect of disputed property. Parties also decided to execute deed of conveyance which was prepared on 22nd December 2006. But the registration of the document could not take place as defendant No.1 did not turn up to the registering authority, as such, title of the disputed proper could not pass in favour of the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, plaintiff came across a notification issued by the Government in respect of auction of the disputed properties. Auction was to be conducted for recovering dues payable to the flat purchasers in respect of which appropriate orders were passed by the Consumer Forum in favour of the flat purchasers. The State Government attached large track of property belonged to defendant No.1 and also conducted auction in respect of certain properties. The State Government recovered some 3 673.10-ao-- amount to satisfy part of the dues payable to the flat purchasers. It is stated by learned A.G.P. appearing for the State that there is liability worth Rs.27 crore required to be satisfied by defendant No.1. 3. According to the appellant, the property in the hand of the State Government is more than sufficient to satisfy liability incurred by defendant No.1. The only relief that is sought in the present appeal from order is in relation to such of those properties which are not taken over by the State Government and which are in the hands of defendant No.1. The appellant prays that respondent Nos.1 to 3/ original defendant Nos.1 to 3 be restrained from creating third party interest in respect of such of those properties which are in their hands and which are not yet taken over by the State Government. The appellant also prays that respondent Nos.1 to 3/ defendant Nos.1 to 3 may also be restrained from dealing with such of those properties which will be released in their favour on satisfaction of the liability by the State Government. The counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3/ original defendant Nos.1 to 3 states that she has not received any instruction from her clients and, as such, is unable to make any statement. In this view of the matter, interest of justice would be met if the respondent Nos.1 to 3/ original defendant Nos.1 to 3 are restrained from dealing with such of those properties, which are prescribed in the Chart produced by the appellant, which is marked as “X” for identification and which are not subject matter of attachment by State Govt.. 4. Accordingly, respondent Nos.1 to 3/ original defendant Nos.1 to 3 are restrained from creating third party interest in respect of 4 673.10-ao-- such of those properties which are in their hands and which are not yet taken over by the State Government which are specifically mentioned in the Chart produced on record by the appellant marked “X” for identification until disposal of the suit. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/ defendant Nos.1 to 3 are also restrained from dealing with and/or creating third party interest in respect of such of those properties which will be released by the State Government in their favour on satisfaction of the dues recoverable by the flat purchasers in pursuance of the order passed by the Consumer Forum, until disposal of the suit. 5. It is clarified that injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 3/ original defendant Nos.1 to 3 restraining them from creating any third party interest shall not come in the way of of execution of decree or orders which are passed against respondent Nos.1 to 3/ defendant Nos.1 to 3 independently and it would also be open to the appellant/ plaintiff to raise appropriate objections in the execution proceeding, if presented by those decree holders. 6. In view of the order referred to above, appeal from order and civil application stand disposed of. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to hear and decide the suit expeditiously. (R.M.BORDE, J.)