1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 94 OF 2007 (Gulshan Santdas Mirchandani vs. Doma Wasudeo Rahate & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 20, 2008. The matter was heard by me on 12.08.2008 and was adjourned to today with consent of the parties. The present appellant has filed a suit for specific performance against Wasudeo and Wasudeo himself had filed Special Civil Suit No. 900 of 1996 against one Ganesh Nagpur Sahakari Sanstha for cancellation of Sale Deed executed by his aunt Manjulabai in favour of that society. It appears that Manjulabai had also executed a sale deed in favour of Wasudeo. The said suit came to be dismissed in default and presently MJC for its restoration is being prosecuted by legal heirs of the deceased Wasudeo who are all respondents before this Court. The present applicant claims specific performance because of his alleged agreement with Wasudeo dated 25.09.1990. In a suit for specific performance 2 filed vide Special Civil Suit No.1099 of 2006, he has moved an application for temporary injunction and application at Exh. 35 for restoration of possession of suit property. By common order dated 16.8.2007, 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, dismissed both the applications. One of the observations made by the trial Court is that suit filed by present appellant was itself premature. After hearing Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the appellant – plaintiff and Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for the respondents, I find that there was a contract pleaded by the appellant – plaintiff in his favour by Wasudeo and he was seeking its specific performance. The Court below was considering only Exh. 5 and not Civil Suit on merits. In these circumstances, the observations about SCS No. 1099 of 2006 being premature, though made at interlocutory stage, are not very relevant. It is to be noted that the Court below itself has found that the observations were only of prima facie in nature. It is hereby clarified that those observations will not come in the way of the appellant – plaintiff if he is required to move appropriate application in SCS No. 1099 of 2006 at any point of time in future or even while finally adjudicating said Civil Suit. 3 Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel states that during the pendency of MJC, which is filed by the deceased Wasudeo and is being prosecuted by the present respondents for restoration of SCS No.900 of 1996 i.e. MJC No.143 of 2007, the legal heirs of the deceased Wasudeo shall maintain status quo in relation to suit property. He further fairly states that if MJC is granted and SCS No. 900 of 1996 is restored, the legal heirs shall maintain status quo during the pendency of said SCS also. In view of this fair statement made, I find that the apprehension as expressed in Exh. 5 by the present appellant does not survive. During the arguments, Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel expressed that the respondents may collude with Ganesh Cooperative Society and may withdraw MJC or the result of MJC may be adverse. If the result is adverse, the appellant is free to move appropriate application for interim reliefs in SCS No.1099 of 2006. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the present appellant is also party to said MJC No. 143 of 1997. In the circumstances, the proceedings in MJC No. 143 of 1997 are expedited. The Court below to decide MJC as early as possible and in any case within a period of six months from 4 the date of communication of this order to it. If the MJC is allowed, the proceedings in restored suit (then) SCS No. 900 of 1996 shall also stand expedited and the concerned Court shall endeavour to decide it as early as possible and in any case within a further period of one year from the date of its restoration. Both the parties fairly state that till the adjudication of MJC No. 143 of 2007 or if MJC is allowed till adjudication of SCS No. 900 of 1996, further proceedings in SCS No. 1099 of 2006 should be stayed. I find that the interest of justice demands such a step. Hence, till the adjudication of MJC No. 143 of 2007 or till adjudication of SCS No. 900 of 1996, further proceedings in SCS No.1099 of 2006 are stayed. Nothing survives in present Appeal against Order in view of this arrangement. A.O. is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE *GS.