/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3864 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1409 OF 2007 Nellon Vincent Fernandes & Ors. ...Plaintiffs Vs. Yusuf Noor Mahamed Khan & Anr. ...Defendants --- Mr.J.S. Kini i/b G.M. Jain for Plaintiffs Mr.Snehal Shah i/b Y.R. Shah for Defendant No.2 Ms. Shama Gupta i/b Shoaib I. Memon for Defendant No.1. CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED JULY 9, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2. The Plainiffs are seeking interim relief in terms of the Notice of Motion. By order dated 14th December, 2007, this Court was pleased to grant ad-interim relief in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of prayer clause (b). The Plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking a declaration that the development agreement dated 4th June,2003 was executed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 stands legally terminated in view of the breach committeed by the Defendant No.1 of the said development agreement. He also seeks a declaration that the power of attorney dated 4.2.2003 which was executed in / 2 / favour of the Defendant No.1 stands cancelled. Further he seeks declaration that the sale deed dated 27.7.2004 and 11.5.2005 in respect of the flat Nos. G-1 and G-2 should be declared null and void and that the Defendant No.2 be directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said two flats. Further he seeks compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for violation of the terms of the development agreement. It is the case of the Plaintffs that the Defendant No.1 has entered into a development agreement with the Plaintiffs and Defendants were specifically informed that the Defendant No.1 would be under an obligation to obtain the permission from the Municipal Corporation for the development of the plot. He also specifically stated in the development agreement that the said plot was within the Coastal Regulation Zone. Under the agreement the Defendant No.1 had agreed to give two flats to the Plaintiffs. The building was constructed by the Defendant No.1 and possession of the two flats were handed over to the Plaitiffs sometime in June, 2003. Thereafter, the remaining flat were sold by the developer. So far as the Defendant No.2 is concerned, he has taken these flats on lease for the period of 99 years from one Russel Horton and he is in possession and he is a bonafide, relied on the representation made by the Defendant No.1. It is submitted that the Plaintiff / 3 / himself had confirmed the said agreement. It is submitted that therefore, it is not open for the Plaintiffs at this stage to seek possession. 3. Submission made by the Plaintiffs at this stage that the Court Receiver should be appointed and possession of the flats should be handed over to the Plaintiffs, cannot be accepted. Already an ad-interim relief has been granted in favour of the Plaintiffs and their rights are protected. The said ad-interim relief will be continued during the pendency of the suit and the hearing of the suit is expedited. The Defendant No.1 should file the written statement within four weeks. Place the matter for framing the issues on 11th August, 2008. Accordingly, motion is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.