1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2310 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 1936 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4105 OF 2009 Edelweiss Securities Limited .. Appellant Vs. 1. Pramila Lodha and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Simil Purohit i/by Purohit and Co. for appellant. Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir a/w Ms. Harshal Manik i/by Rustamji & Giriwala for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. February 23, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Purohit the learned counsel for the appellant – original defendant no.1 and Mr. Ardeshir appears for the 2 plaintiffs. 2. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 21st July, 2008 thereby allowing Notice of Motion No. 2310 of 2008 in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), filed in Suit No. 1936 of 2008. By the said order, the appellant has been restrained from disposing off or transferring units of Reliance Long Term Equity Fund during the pendency of the suit. 3. It appears that units of of three different companies i.e. Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund, Lotus India Mutual Fund and Reliance Long Term Equity Fund were handed over by the plaintiffs to the appellant which is a stock broker firm and the units of Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund and Lotus India Mutual Fund were encashed/sold. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that this was unauthorized and the plaintiffs filed Suit No. 1936 of 2008 for the recovery of Rs.12,73,144.36 and also sought permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 from making any application to defendant no.2 to redeem or transfer or sell or register any transfer of the said units i.e. the units of Reliance Long Term Equity Fund. 3 4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has noted that there was no material on record to show that lien was created towards the liability of Blue Diamond Polyplast India Limited and, in fact, the correspondence between the parties clearly indicated that the security was given towards the trading activity which was intended to be commenced by plaintiff no.1 with defendant no.1. In short, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the security which was given towards trading activity could not have been sold for adjusting the liability, if any, of another company i.e. Blue Diamond Polyplast India Limited. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has moved Notice of Motion No. 4105 of 2009 and prayed for bringing on record additional evidence i.e. (1) a compact disc (CD) containing recorded audio conversation between Mr. Ravikumar Lodha (Plaintiff No.2) and Mr. Varsheet, (2) transcript of the recorded audio conversation between Mr. Ravikumar Lodha and Mr. Varsheet and (3) the award dated 27/4/2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. No doubt, the last document is a public document but the CD 4 of the recorded audio is sought to be placed before this court for the first time, though for the reasons stated in the Motion. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced before us, we do not find any error in the impugned order so as to cause interference in the same by entertaining this appeal and, therefore, this appeal must fail at the threshold. 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed. 8. However, this order will not prevent the appellant to approach the trial Court to bring on record additional evidence along with the Written Statement and pray for appropriate relief, as may be permissible in law and we make it clear that we have not gone into the additional documents. 9. Notice of Motion No. 4105 of 2009 does not survive and shall stand disposed as such. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)