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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4676 of 2007. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4676 of 2007. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4676 of 2007. IN IN IN SUIT NO.476 of 2004. SUIT NO.476 of 2004. SUIT NO.476 of 2004. Akhtar Hasan Rizvi ..Plaintiff versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd ..Defendant Mr.E.V.Devtre i/b. R.R.Kalekar for the Plaintiff Mr.N.V.Walavalkar i/b. S.R.Page for the Defendant CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. P.C. 1. The plaintiffs have instituted this suit so as to seek specific performance of agreement dated 24.10.1974 purported to have been executed between the M/s.Nixel Motors on one hand and the defendant on the other. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiff for following reliefs: i) The plaintiff wants an order of injunction restraining defendant from changing the nature of the suit property either by demolition of the structure or from encumbering or creating any third party interest in the suit property or parting with the possession of the suit property or portion thereof. -2- ii) The plaintiff wants the receiver to be appointed in regard to the suit property. 2. The defendant have filed affidavit in reply. The pleadings are complete. In the course of hearing before this Court, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff conceded that the plaintiff has already handed over the possession of the suit property to the defendants and as of today the defendants are in possession of the suit property in view of certain orders passed in the proceeding initiated against the plaintiff in the Public Premises Eviction Act. I have heard learned advocates on both the sides. In the first place there is no averment in the plaint so as to justify the aforesaid relief. The learned advocate for the plaintiff contended that in the absence of such averments in the plaint it is open for the plaintiff to apply for interim relief as the motion is taken out during the pendency of the suit. Even if such an argument is accepted, after going through the affidavit in support of motion I am inclined to observe that there is no proper averment made in the affidavit so as to say that -3- the defendants are likely to create third party rights or likely to bring about change in the suit premises. After having gone through the entire record, I am inclined to observe that on the basis of the record before the Court as of today the plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case for grant of interim reliefs. 3. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has read out to me paragraph 13 of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion and I am inclined to observe that the averments therein are absolutely general. Plaintiff has not set out specific particulars on the basis of which the plaintiff has moved this court for interim reliefs. Hence the interim relief can’t be granted and the motion will have to be dismissed. Hence the order. ORDER Notice of motion is dismissed. Suit set down for issues on 5.9.2008. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) -4-