1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2946 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2073 OF 2009 Kamla C. Nichani ..Plaintiff Vs. Deccan Development Corporation and 5 Ors. ..Defendants .... M.L.Palan along with Smita Gaidhani for Plaintiff None for Defendants .... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 8th DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. When this Notice of Motion was placed on board on 25th September, 2009, Defendant No.6 appeared through his Advocate and made statement that status-quo in respect of suit property would be maintained by the 6th Defendant Developers/Builder. 2. The Court directed all parties to the suit to maintain status-quo as prevailing on the date of the ad-interim order. The Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have not applied for vacating this order nor have they filed any affidavit in reply although they are duly served. 2 3. Defendant No.6 has filed reply and stated that the Court should decide the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue i.e. on the basis that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. However, the Plaintiff has pointed out that the Court has granted leave Under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on 29th July, 2009 on the basis of averments in the plaint. Thus, 6th Defendant has not remained present to argue the Motion or press the issue of jurisdiction at this stage. On the other hand, it is stated by the Defendant No.6 that it may be permitted to file a reply to the Notice of Motion and Written Statement to the main suit after the issue of jurisdiction is decided. However, at the hearing of the Motion, none is present on their behalf nor is any application made to revoke the leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The averments in the plaint are uncontroverted. The final relief in the plaint is for declaration that the documents entered into between the Defendants inter se are fraudulent and bogus. The Plaintiff is claiming declaration of the title. In these circumstances, prima facie case is made out. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has stated that during the pendency of the suit, the property should not be dealt with or disposed of by them. It is stated that the suit property is an open land. In these circumstances, interest of justice would be served if it is directed that all parties to the suit shall maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property, until the suit is 3 heard and disposed off. Liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in case the Plaintiff desires to have a Receiver of the suit property. 4. Motion disposed of. S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.