1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 2/2008 (Empress Mills Nagpur vs. Ramsharan Kanojiya ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI , J. DATED: 07th February, 2008. *** By way of present appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 23rd October, 2007 vide which the defendant/appellant has been directed not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff/respondent till hearing and final disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No. 966/2006 for declaration, injunction and specific performance of contract. It is the contention of the plaintiff that as per the decision of the Government of Maharashtra, it has been decided to close down Empress Mills and that as per the said decision, the employees working in the said Mills are to be sold the properties in their possession. 3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that as 2 agreed between the parties, the defendants have failed to perform their part of the contract and not executed the sale deed. Accordingly, the suit came to be filed for relief of declaration that the defendants have committed discrimination and failed to perform their part. Apart from other relief, direction is also sought that the defendants 1 and 2 to register the sale deed. 4. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 30 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC also came to be filed and vide order dated 23rd October 2007, the same came to be allowed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 5. Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court having come to conclusion that no case is made out for grant of interim relief has granted an order of injunction restraining the appellants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff/respondent. It is submitted that it is on account of failure on the part of the plaintiff, the sale deed could not be executed. 6. Per contra, Shri Kalbande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff submits that taking into consideration the fact that the possession of the present plaintiff needs to be protected, the order of injunction has been granted. He submits that no case is 3 made out for interference in the present appeal. 7. There is some dispute with regard to the actual amount payable by the respondent /plaintiff to the appellants/defendants. The question as to whether the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree of execution of sale deed and at what price, will be determined at the stage of the decision of the suit. However, in order to safeguard the interests of the plaintiff as well as defendants, the plaintiff was directed to show his bona fides by depositing an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs in the trial Court. The defendant was also directed to restore the possession of one room and three garages which were taken into possession by the defendants. 8. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed an undertaking thereby undertaking to deposit an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs within a period of one month from today and further reserving his right to get the sale deed executed as per the policy of the Government vide Resolution dated 11th March 2003. The defendants also filed an undertaking that on the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs being deposited in the trial Court, the appellants shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises taken as per the orders by the Resident Deputy Collector dated 31st May, 2007. Shri Naik, on the basis of instructions of the Authoriserd Signatory of the appellant, who is personally 4 present in the Court, makes a statement that the appellants would not proceed further with the Criminal Case filed under the Companies Act. The said undertakings are taken on record and marked “X” and X-1 respectively, for the purpose of identification. 9. I am, therefore, inclined to dispose of the present appeal by modifying the order of the learned trial Court as under : The plaintiff- respondent shall deposit an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs in the trial Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit of the said amount, the said amount be invested in the fixed deposit of a nationalised bank, for a period of one year. On deposit of such amount, the appellants/defendant shall forthwith restore the possession of one room and three garages which were taken in possession as per the order of the Resident Deputy Collector dated 31st May, 2007. The appellants /defendant shall not proceed with Criminal Case No.140/2005 filed under section 630 of the Companies Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Nagpur, till the decision of the suit. On the condition of deposit as aforesaid being complied with, the appellants/defendant shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiff of the area in the possession of 5 the plaintiff along with aforesaid one room and three garages. Needless to say that this shall be the subject to final decision of the suit. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one year from today. JUDGE sahare