1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1644 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1096 OF 2009 Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt.Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Versus Oshiwara Land Development Co.Ltd. And others .. Defendants Mr.M.U.Pandey with Mr.S.Jain and Mr.Akram i/b. H.Thakkar & Co. for plaintiffs Mr.D.D.Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr.H.R.Toor i/b. N.R.GGandhi for defendant No.1 Mr.Sharan Jagtiani i/b. Mahimtura & Co. for defendant Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25th August 2009. P.C.: 1] After the motion was argued for some time, my attention is invited to the ad-interim order which is based on a statement made in para 7(c) of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of first defendant and para 4(c) of the affidavit in reply on behalf of defendant No.4. 2 Both these affidavits proceed on the basis that the suit is premature and no interim relief can be granted at this stage because all that has happened is that the Suit No.3429 of 1991 is disposed of in the light of the consent terms. However, the fruits of the decree passed have not been enjoyed by any of these parties. The allotment of land has yet to take place. 2] In the light of these affidavits and the clear statements therein which are accepted by this Court, when the matter was placed before this Court for ad-interim reliefs and, there being no change in the circumstances, as confirmed by Mr.Madon, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.1 and Mr.Jagtiani appearing for defendant No.4, this motion is made absolute in terms of ad-interim order with liberty to plaintiff to apply for such other and further reliefs after the allotment takes effect. 3] If the land is allotted in terms of consent terms in Suit No. 3429 of 1991 to the defendant No.1 and/or defendant No.4, their Advocates shall inform plaintiffs' Advocate within a period of ten 3 days from the date of receipt of the letter/ document to that effect and it would be open for the plaintiffs to apply for further interim reliefs in terms of present notice of motion by making appropriate application. All contentions are kept open. Since the statement of the first defendant so also that of the fourth defendant that the suit itself is premature and, therefore, no question arises of granting any interim relief, is accepted, this motion is disposed of. It is clarified that no opinion is expressed on any of the contentions raised before me. Statements which are made without prejudice are accepted and shall not in any manner prevent the plaintiff from applying for further and other interim reliefs. 4] The apprehension of Mr.Pande appearing for plaintiff is that other compliances as per the consent terms in Suit No.3429 of 1991 may have been made and, therefore, this order does not sufficiently protect the plaintiff's right, if any, in the property. It is clarified by Mr.Jagtiani that since the allotment has to take effect, defendant No.4 has not forwarded any names to the Government. Needless to state that nothing prevents the plaintiffs in Suit No. 4 3429 of 1991 to take steps to execute the decree passed in their favour and, this order does not affect their rights and contentions in the execution proceedings. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)