: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2112 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1466 OF 2009 Darshanlal Madan .. Plaintiff V/s. Issardas V. Talreja & Anr. .. Defendants ..... Mr. Rajesh Singh for the plaintiff Mr. Pankaj Kawli a/w. Ravi Rattesar for the defendants ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. It is stated that the subject matter of the suit is a closed parking area / garage. It is attached to flat No. 602. The plaintiff states that he purchased flat No.701 with two car parking spaces / areas but the defendants have transferred to him only one and other one is used by them purportedly as being part of Flat No.602. However, according to Mr. Singh appearing for the plaintiff this is not the position. According to him, if the garage was attached to 602, then, there was no occasion for the defendant to apply for the Society to treat it as such. The very fact that they have so applied means that the garage is not a part and parcel of the flat No.602. 2. The above arguments are countered by Mr. Kawli appearing for the defendants. He states that there is no document transferring the garage save and except what is : 2 : attached to flat No.701. The subject Garage is a closed parking area / garage to flat No.602. The application is made to the Society by way of abundant caution. 3. However, after the matter was argued for some time, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants, Mr. Kawli on instructions states that the defendants have no intention to dispose off or create third party interest in the suit garage and presently it is used by them as they are in possession of flat No.602. Mr. Kawli states that as and when the defendants desire to dispose off the suit garage, they will do so only with the leave and prior sanction of this Court. The statements made by Mr. Kawli are accepted as an undertaking to this Court. In the light of these statements and since the order passed today is based on the same, there is no necessity of making the Motion absolute in terms of any specific prayers. Suffice to say that the defendants shall not dispose off or create any third party interest so also part with possession of the suit garage except with prior leave and sanction of this Court. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Notice of Motion is disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)