1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1342 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1256 OF 2007 VISHWASRAO G. JOSHI ..PLAINTIFF VS. SMT. SARITA Wd/ MOHAN S. KHANOLKAR & ORS. ..DEFENDANTS Mr. M.V.Limaye for the Plaintiff Mr Vijay Waghela for Defendants No.1 to 5 Mr. Vaibhav Patankar for Defendant No.7 CORAM: SMT ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 20 th February, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Plaintiff sued in the Bombay City Civil Court & Sessions Court (BCCC). The suit was filed under an Agreement of Sale executed by and between Defendant No.7 and the Plaintiff dated 10.08.1978. Defendant No.7 had sought to transfer his interest which he had acquired from the original Defendant No.6. Defendant No.6 is stated to have executed an Agreement for sale with the predecessor- in-title of 2 Defendants No.1 to 4. The said predecessor- in-title Mohan Khanolkar was in possession of the suit property. He has admittedly obtained a lease deed in his favour from the owenrs of the suit property who settled the property upon trust. He has admittedly been a lessee since 10.04.1975. Further creation of interest from the said lessee to Defendant No.6, then to Defendant No.7 and then to the Plaintiff has been between 06.11.1973, even prior to he being granted the lease and whilst he was in possession of the suit property to 10.08.1978, when the Plaintiff is stated to have acquired interest in the suit property. 2. Defendant No.7 admits the claim of the Plaintiff. Defendants No.1 to 4 have disputed that claim. They deny having entered into any Agreement with the original Defendant No.6. 3. After the suit was filed in the BCCC an order came to be passed injuncting Defendants No.1 to 4 herein from creating further rights. 4. Since they sought to develop, the Plaintiff obtained further order restraining them from utilising the FSI in respect of the suit property. Thus injunction order continued pending the suit. 3 5. After evidence was laid the suit came to be returned to this court under order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC as that court did not have jurisdiction. The interim orders continued. 6. Prima facie case of the Plaintiff has already been seen by the BCCC. There is nothing to dispute that prima facie finding. Hence this Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) & (b). Defendants shall not create any third party rights of any nature and obstruct the Plaintiff's development in the suit property. The Defendants shall also not put any construction or development on the suit property or utilise the FSI of the suit property in any manner. Notice of Motion disposed of accordingly. (Roshan Dalvi, J)