1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.481 OF 2011 Sanjay Jayant Pawar & Others ...Applicants Versus M/s. Indira Complex Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Others ...Respondents Mr.S.V.Palsuledesai for the Applicants Mr.J.M.D’Silva for the Respondent No.1 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 26th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Contesting respondent in this Civil Application is represented by Mr.J.M.D’Silva. He is served. For reasons mentioned in the text of the Civil Application, it is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). There shall be no order as to costs. 2. Civil Revision Application No.111 of 2011 is restored to the file of 2 this court. 3. Special Civil Suit No.61 of 2001 came to be filed by M/s. Indira Complex Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel. Said Indira Complex Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., is a contesting respondent no.1 in both these civil revision applications. Both these applications were taken up for admission after restoration of the Civil Revision Application No.111 of 2011. 4. M/s. Indira Complex Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.61 of 2001 being Suit filed in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panvel, District Raigad. The said suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 22.4.2010. After that was done, the present applicants who were defendant nos.4a to 4d filed Misc. Application No.207 of 2009 for a direction against the respondent respondent no.1 to give consent to the applicants for the purpose of carrying out construction of 881 sq.meter as set out in prayer clause (a). That application was rejected by the impugned order dated 30.6.2010 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, 3 Panvel. Same is the case so far as Civil Revision Application No.111 of 2011. The petitioners have challenged the two orders. 5. With the assistance of learned Advocates on both sides, I have perused the portion part of the judgment and decree passed in the Special Civil Suit No.61 of 2001. Learned Advocate Mr. Parsule Desai appearing on behalf of the applicants pointed out item no.3 which reads as under: “ The Defendants Nos.1 to 4 are hereby directed to execute within four months the conveyance deed in respect of the suit premises “SHRI SADAN” and”SHIR BHAVAN” situated on the plot No.192 admeasuring area 2476 sq. mtrs in favour of the plaintiff society on getting he consent of society for utilizing the additional F.S.I. Of 881 sq. meters.” 6. I have perused the said item no.3. A reading of the words starting from “ The defendants ........ in favour of the plaintiff” would go to show that the defendant nos.1 to 4 in the aforesaid suit have been directed to execute the conveyance within the period of four months in regard to the premises set out in the said order. The later part of 4 the item is “on getting the consent of the society for utilizing the additional FSI of 881 sq.meters” if read in the context of the later portion, did not convey the specific meaning as to what was passing in the mind of the learned Trial Judge. Learned Advocate Mr. Parsule Desai submitted before this Court that the present applicants after executing the conveyance in favour of the respondent no.1 were entitled to use additional FSI of 881 sq. meter after obtaining permission from the respondent no.1. 7. The reading of the entire order at Item No.3 does not convey such a meaning. It appears that the words “On getting consent of the Society for utilizing the additional FSI of 881 sq. meters no doubt indicates that something was passing in the mind of the learned Trial Judge as to how that Additional FSI of 881 sq. meters should be utilized. The text of item no.3 is not very much clear. Despite that position, the applicants filed an application and that application has been rejected. 8. In my view, it would be proper that if the applicants apply to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panvel praying for clarifying 5 the text of item no.3 and pass an appropriate order. Once that application is decided, the mind of the court would be clear and depending upon that, the parties would be able to take further steps in so far as the decree which is passed. 9. On hearing this expression, learned Advocate for the applicants Mr. Parsule Desai applies for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to file application for seeking clarification of item no.3 of the judgment and decree passed in the Special Civil Suit No.61 of 2001 so that the mind of the learned Judge would be clear and there would be clarity to the order which the learned Judge wanted to pass at item no.3. Needless to mention that since the impugned orders in both these petitions came to be passed while the text of item no.3 was remained as above, these orders would not come in the way of the applicantsin applying for appropriate reliefs once the clarification is obtained. 10.For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the applications are allowed to be withdrawn. Liberty is given to the applicants to move the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, District Raigad so as to have text of item no.3 clarified by making use of appropriate orders so that 6 the text of the decree would be clear and certain. 11.The orders impugned in this petition would not come in the way of the applicants for taking appropriate action as and when the text of item no.3 is clarified and certainty is given to the said attempt. 12.If the learned Jude who has passed the decree in the aforesaid suit is transferred, then the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panvel shall hear the learned Advocates on both sides on the limited question as regards clarification of part 3 of the operative part of the judgment and decree and pass appropriate order. 13.Both the Civil Revision Applications are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)