1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3148 OF 2009 Smita Pradeep Shah & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Hirachand M. Shah (deceased) through Lrs. Shrimandar H. Shah and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Girish Shedge with H.P.Ghadigaonkar for petitioners Mr.P.S.Dani with S.R.Page for respondent Nos.1C to 1E. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7782 OF 2008 Arinjay Hirachand Shah & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Shrimandar Hirachand Shah and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani with Mr.S.R.Page for petitioners Mr.Mihir Desai for respondent No.6 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd April 2009. P.C. . These two petitions were placed together 2 as the parties thereto are identical. 2. The first petition i.e. 3148 of 2009 is by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in R.C.S.No.117 of 2008 which is pending on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune. That is instituted by one Arinjay Hirachand Shah and Pushpak Shah against the heirs of one Hirachand Manikchand Shah. Petitioners in this petition are impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to the suit. In the plaint, it is stated that the suit property is land bearing S.Nos.34/1/4 and S.No.39/1A and S.No.39/5 and the controversy is about portions of these lands. It is stated that all parties are related to each other. One Manikchand deceased was father of Hirachand original defendant No.1. Hirachand has also expired. The heirs are plaintiffs and defendant No.2. 3. The properties are stated to be self acquired properties of deceased Manikchand. He 3 has removed his name from the record of rights and had entered names of defendant No.1 i.e. Hirachand and one Shrimandar Hirachand Shah so also plaintiff No.1 and one Jugmandar Hirachand Shah. Name of one Niranjan Hirachand was also entered. While removing his name from record of rights and entering the names as aforesaid, according to plaintiffs, it was the wish of Manikchand that Hirachand should enjoy the property coming to his share during the lifetime and thereafter, he should form registered charitable trust and hand over the said property to the Trust. 4. Reliance was also placed upon one Khulasa Patra dated 10th June 1982. Proceeding on the basis that this Khulasa Patra has been acted upon and that the parties to the suit (defendant No.1) has disposed of the agricultural lands, it is stated that the public notice appearing on 27th December 2007 in the newspaper shows that 4 defendant No.2 has entered into a development agreement dated 19th December 2007 with original defendant No.3 and the same has been registered. The power of attorney has also been executed and that is how the contents of the notice were objected to. A challenge was laid to these documents and they are allegedly termed as void and illegal. However, in this view, the relief of permanent injunction alone came to be claimed restraining the parties to the documents enlisted above from claiming any rights thereunder. In other words, after seeking a declaration the only relief that is claimed is that the development agreement should not be acted upon. 4. In such a suit an application was made for interim injunction and the learned Judge of the trial court, after hearing parties by an order dated 1st March 2008 restrained original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 from proceeding with the development work in the suit property in any 5 manner until further orders. 5. Aggrieved by this order passed by Joint Civil Judge, Pune, Misc.Civil Appeal was filed in the court of Dist.Judge, Pune which appeal having been dismissed, Writ Petition No.3148 of 2009 is filed by original defendant Nos.2 and 3 6. As far as second petition i.e. 7782 of 2008 is concerned, that is filed by the original appellants before the Dist.Judge, Pune. The original appellants are aggrieved and dissatisfied with an order that was made on a Misc.Civil Appeal No.308 of 2008 on 17th November 2008. That order dismisses their Appeal and in turn confirms order of the trial court dated 6th August 2008 in R.C.S.No.897 of 2008. 7. Aggrieved by this dismissal that the instant petition by the original plaintiffs in that suit, who are the appellants before 6 Dist.Judge, Pune. 8. Both petitions were heard me at some length. However, my attention was invited to the order passed by the lower appellate court which is impugned in W.P.3148 of 2009. That order of the lower appellate court directs the trial court to dispose of the R.C.S.No.117 of 2008 within a period of six months from the date of the order of the lower appellate court. My attention was also invited to the fact that presently an ad-interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7782 of 2008 is operative. It is in such circumstances that I indicated to parties that some fair and equitable arrangements can be made during the course of the proceedings so as not to prejudice the case of both sides. Equally that would avoid any observations being made even at this prima facie and tentative stage by this Court. 7 9. Counsel appearing for parties, therefore, agreed to the following order being passed:- (a) The Regular Civil Suit No.117 of 2008 and Regular Civil Suit No.897 of 08 shall stand assigned to the same court, if not already assigned; (b) Learned Judge to whom suits are assigned shall endeavour and dispose of the same within the period stipulated in the order of the lower appellate court i.e. six months from 20th January 2009. (c) If the suit could not be disposed of as directed by the lower appellate court’s order, then, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in R.C.S.No.117 of 2008 shall be at liberty to apply for vacating the interim order passed in the suit and such an application if made shall be dealt 8 with on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made earlier; Equally, they can apply for vacating the ad-interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.7782 of 2008. 10. Mr.Dani makes a statement on instructions that plaintiffs in R.C.S.117 of 2008 and 897 of 2008 shall deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs.35 lakhs on or before 31st May 2009. The amount, if deposited, shall be invested by the trial court in Fixed Diposit of any Nationalised bank initially for a period of one year and shall renew the same subject to further directions of the Court. 11. Both sides to cooperate in early disposal of the suit and by not seeking unnecessary adjournments. Petitions are disposed of in these terms. All contentions on merits are kept open. 9 The trial court to decide the suits uninfluenced by any observations made in the interlocutory orders. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)