1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2886 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2009 OF 2009 Natvarlal H. Thakkar and Anr. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Fausta Sathyasilan and Anr. ... Defendants. Ms. Prachi Khandge i/b. M.P. Vashi & Assoc. for the Plaintiffs. Mr. S.R. Saudagar for the Defendants. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 6th NOVEMBER 2009. P.C. :- Mr. Saudagar, learned Advocate appears on behalf of Defendant No.1. None appears on behalf of Defendant No.2 though served. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the Plaintiffs is taken on record. The First Defendant proceeds on denials. 3. The Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for declaration that the agreement for sale dated 1st December 2006 is false, fabricated and not binding on them and is liable to be cancelled. In furtherance of this relief, temporary injunction is sought to restrain the Defendants from disturbing the possession of the Plaintiffs in respect of the Suit flat. 2 4. The ad-interim order was made on this Notice of Motion on 12th August 2009. 5. However, Mr. Saudagar appearing on behalf of the First Defendant submits that the case of the Plaintiffs is false inasmuch as there is a valid and subsisting agreement for sale of the suit flat, pursuant to which the First Defendant in this Suit has paid the entire consideration and she is entitled to specific performance of the same. In fact, the First Defendant has filed her first substantive suit for specific performance of the very agreement, cancellation of which is sought by the First Defendant in Suit No.2674 of 2009. In First Defendant’s Suit, an application for interim relief is also filed, hence no interim relief be granted in favour of the Vendors. More particularly, when they are trying to wriggle out of the concluded contract. 6. In these circumstances, this is a case where it is just and convenient to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as a Receiver of the suit flat. Although, the First Defendant does not wish to dis-possess the Plaintiffs, yet, the facts are such as would warrant appointment of receiver, is the submission of Mr. Saudagar. 7. These arguments are controverted by the Plaintiffs’ Counsel, who submits that the Plaintiffs have pointed out as to how the First Defendant is trying to twist a one sided and illegal agreement and they had never consented to sell the 3 flat to the First Defendant. 8. Be that as if may since the First Defendant does not dispute that the Plaintiffs are in physical possession, then, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides, it is directed that the Plaintiffs possession will not be disturbed or obstructed in any manner by the First Defendant or their servants and agents until the final disposal of Suit No.2009 of 2009. 9. Equally, the Plaintiffs in Suit No.2009 of 2009 are restrained from inducting anybody else in the Suit premises, parting with possession thereof or transferring the same in any manner until the disposal of the Suit. This order is passed in the light of the substantive Suit for specific performance filed by the First Defendant. 10. This order disposes off Notice of Motion No.2886 of 2009 in Suit No.2009 of 2009 and Notice of Motion No.3784 of 2009 in Suit No.2674 of 2009. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)