1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1735 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1427 OF 2006 Vivek Purshottam Bajaj & Anr. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Shailesh P. Shah, HUF & Ors. ...Defendants. Mr.V.V. Khema for the Plaintiffs. Ms. Shweta Katvi i/by M/s. Dhru & Co. for Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Nirmal Devnani for Defendant Nos. 5 and 6. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 3rd AUGUST, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Plaintiffs’ prayer in the main suit is to declare MoU dated 23rd June, 2003 binding upon the Defendants. The Plaintiffs have entered into an agreement between the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 subject to proving the title of the property. It means when entered into this agreement the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have no clear title and or at least no document to support the same. There is a dispute about the same therefore, at this stage, unless it is decided finally, I see there is no reason to grant ad- interim relief as sought in the notice of motion by the plaintiffs. Even otherwise, the suit is of the year 2006. Notice of Motion is of the year 2 2006. There is no ad-interim relief in favour of the Plaintiffs till this date. In view of this, no order in this notice of motion. However, the liberty is granted to the Plaintiff to take out fresh notice of motion based upon the supporting material on record. 2 The learned counsel appearing for Defendant Nos. 5 and 6, who are Builders, on instructions, makes statement that Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 will not utilize 50% of the Plaintiffs FSI in proportionate to the property in accordance with law. 3 Notice of motion is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)