1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 655 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.4713 OF 1996 Moiz A. Merchant & Ors. .. Plaintiffs Versus D.J.D’Souza & Ors. .. Defendants Mrs.Mrudula Bhatia with Mrs.T.Zaidy i/b. Zaidy & Co. for plaintiffs Mr.M.S.Bhandari with N.M.Shah for defendant No.9 Mr.Satish Kamat for defendant No.11 Mr.Javeed Hussein for defendant Nos. 4 to 8 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24th July 2009. P.C.: 1] This is a suit filed in the year 1996 claiming relief of Specific Performance of an agreement to sell the immovable property. 2] Relying upon a statement which has been made at the time of the earlier application for interim relief, it is contended by the learned Counsel for plaintiffs that the defendants have failed to abide by the same. Consequently, either the Court should issue a direction at this stage itself to put the plaintiffs in possession after construction work is completed or appoint Court Receiver so that he completes the construction for and on behalf of the plaintiff and takes further steps. 1 Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 527 (Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadurr Rao Raja Seth Hiralal). A perusal of the said decision would indicate that the Supreme Court rendered its decision after a full-fledged trial. In this case, the suit has been filed in the year 1996 and is admittedly pending for trial. After the earlier interim order up-till 2008, when this motion was moved, nothing is pointed out which would enable the Court to infer that there are some changed circumstances. The reliefs claimed are virtually final reliefs in the suit. 3] Reliance upon two unreported orders of this Court is also misplaced, inasmuch as, this Court in those orders which were passed immediately upon institution of the suit found on the materials produced that there is due compliance by the plaintiffs in that case and even the equitable considerations are there in their favour. The Court has assigned cogent reasons as to why a relief of the nature granted viz., permitting the plaintiff to put the Receiver in funds to enable him to complete consideration as per sanctioned plan. Therein, the Receiver was appointed because the flat purchasers approached the Court complaining against the Builder that he has failed to abide by his obligations and commitment. Such is not the case before me. The decision is, therefore, distinguishable. 4] It is then contended that this Court directed the defendants to complete the construction and put the plaintiffs in possession. That order 1 is not implemented despite several reminders for all these years. Apart from oral statements, nothing is pointed out which would enable this Court to conclude that the plaintiffs acted diligently in the matter. Even otherwise, it is a suit for specific performance and it is for the plaintiffs to prove their case set out in the plaint at the trial. For the reasons aforesaid, no relief can be granted in the notice of motion and it is accordingly dismissed. However, all observations in this order are tentative and prima facie and shall not in any manner prejudice the case of plaintiff at the trial. Place the suit for framing issues and for directions regarding trial on 10th August 2009. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)