1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 424 OF 2008 DR. ABDUR RAZAK ISMAIL HOLY & ANR. APPELLANTS Vs. ALI HAROON WANGRE & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S. Shah i/b S.H. Patel for appellants Mr. V. J. Hegde for respondents 1 to 4 & 6 CORAM:SMT. RANJANA DESAI & K. K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 21/10/2008 P.C. . By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has rejected prayer for ad-interim relief made by the plaintiffs. 2. The appellant has filed Suit No. 1424 of 2008 inter alia for a declaration that the suit agreements dated 18th May, 2007 are valid, subsisting and binding and for a decree of specific performance of the suit agreements. 2 3. The appellant took out Notice of Motion No. 639 of 2008 inter alia for a direction for appointment of Court Receiver and for restraining the defendants in any manner from disposing of, alienating or creating any encumbrance or third party rights in respect of suit property. As stated hereinabove, ad-interim reliefs having been refused, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants at some length. He has drawn our attention to the copy of two agreement dated 18th May, 2007 which are described as "Agreement for Assignment of Lessor’s interest". He urged that these agreements pertain to Plot Nos. 32 and 33 of Sandhurst Road (East) Estate, Mumbai City and Shop Nos. 10 and 11 and by these agreements the defendants have agreed to assign their leasehold interest in the land and Shop Nos. 10 and 11 to the appellants. Learned Counsel has also drawn our attention to the power of attorney dated 18th May, 2007 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of the appellants. Learned Counsel contended that the defendants avoided to take steps in performance of the said agreements though the plaintiffs were 3 willing to perform their part of the agreements. The defendants were likely to dispose of the suit property. This led to the filing of the present suit and motion. Learned Counsel submitted that in the circumstances, learned Single Judge erred in refusing ad-interim relief. He submitted that an amount of Rs.54,00,000/- has already been paid by the appellants to the defendants. We must note at this stage that this statement is disputed by learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants on the other hand submitted that the defendants have already assigned all their rights in the suit plot and suit shops to third parties. Third parties rights have already been created. The rights have been assigned to Mohammad Hussain Gulamali Shariffi and others. Power of Attorney dated 18th May, 2008 is executed by the defendants in favour of Mohammad Hussain Gulamali Shariffi and others. He submitted that, therefore, defendants are not concerned with the suit property any more and hence there is no question of their taking any further steps in respect of the suit property. Learned Counsel for the appellants disputed that any such interest is created in favour of third 4 party by the respondents. In any case he submitted that the appellants be protected for some time so that they can adopt appropriate proceedings against the said third parties in whose favour interest is said to be created by the respondents. 6. If as stated by learned counsel for the respondents third party rights have been created, the appellants will have to adopt appropriate proceedings against the said third parties. No relief can be granted to the appellants in the present motion. In the circumstances, in our opinion, interest of justice would be served by recording the statement made by learned Counsel for the respondents that the respondents have already created third party rights in the suit property and they have nothing to do with the suit property and hence there is no question of their taking any steps in connection with the suit property. We record this statement. Without expressing any opinion on the question whether this statement made by learned Counsel for the respondents is correct or not, we direct that for a period of six weeks no steps will be taken in connection with the suit property. This order obviously binds only the appellants and the respondents. Needless to say 5 that the appellants will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings against third parties, if they so desire. 7. Needless to say that this Court has not touched the merits of the case and all contentions of both the sides are expressly kept open. 8. Appeal is disposed of in aforestated terms. JUDGE JUDGE