IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2000 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 927 OF 2009 Eruch Subbawala ........ Plaintiff versus Jignesh Patel & ors ........Defendants. Mr. Ashish Kamat a/w. Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b. M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. adv. For the Plaintiff Ms. Manasi Joshi i/b. SRM Law Associate adv. For the Defendants 1 and 2. Mr. Yogesh N, Adhia for defendant no.3. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 7th July, 2009. P. C.: 1. The present suit is instituted by the Plaintiff claiming the relief of return of the goods which are stated to have been delivered by defendant no.3 on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 and/or 2. Besides the said relief of return of the goods, a further prayer for compensation is also made. 2. The plaintiff, with a view to seek return of goods, had filed Notice of Motion No. 1400/09. On service of notice, the defendant no.2 had appeared before the court and had candidly admitted the fact that the defendant no.3 did deliver the goods of the plaintiff to the defendant no.2. However, it was contended that there was no previty of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 and hence no relief can be granted. In all fairness the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 at the thrush-hold of the hearing showed his willingness to return the goods to the plaintiff which were wrongly delivered to the defendant no.2 instead of defendant no.1 by the defendant no.3. This court by an order dated 2-5-2009 recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 that the defendant no.2 shall return the goods within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the order and the Notice of Motion came to be disposed of. 3. Thereafter, the Plaintiff approached the defendant no.2 and the defendant no.2 returned almost all the articles barring five articles. It is undisputed that about 48 articles were perportedly delivered to the defendant no.2 and about 43 articles are returned. In regard to the five articles which the plaintiff claims to have not been returned, it is the case of the defendant no.2 that he had not received the said five articles. Having regard to the conduct of defendant no.2 all through out, I have no iota of doubt that the second defendant has substantially complied with the order dated 2-5-2009, and whatever grievance of the plaintiff remains unaddressed can be agitated in the suit itself. In view of the substantial compliance of the order dated 2-5-2009 I do not see that any purpose would be achieved by granting interim relief claimed by the plaintiff, which is in the nature of injunction in regard to the five articles and appointment of Receiver, more so when the defendant has come out with a case that those five items were not handed over to the defendant no.2. In the result there being no merit, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)