: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.201 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.240 OF 2009 Suhail Ahmed A. Kader Ishkey & Anr. .. Appellants V/s. Olympia Seating Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondents Ms. Mamta Sadh i/b. M/s. Zohair & Co. for the Appellants. Mr. R.S. Datar for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 8 TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The appellants had approached this Court contending that the trial Court has committed an error by granting interim relief to the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that a Suit for specific performance has been filed by the plaintiffs- respondents before the trial Court for implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding reached between the parties on 5th December, 2007. It is pointed out that the trial Court has protected the possession of the suit premises : 2 : occupied by the plaintiffs-respondents by directing the defendants-appellants and their representatives not to obstruct the plaintiffs-respondents’ possession of the suit property or to create third party rights. 2. The Suit of the plaintiffs-respondents is based on the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding. Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding reads as under : “13. The first party shall allow the second party to inspect the said land and building as and when required by the second party and if desired the second party can carry out minor renovation of site during the period of M.O.U. and can occupy the premises for plaintiff machinery.” 3. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs-respondents are in possession of the suit premises. A statement has been made in the plaint that the plaintiffs- respondents are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by paying the balance amount of consideration to the appellants-defendants. : 3 : 4. The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the suit which is based on an M.O.U. is not maintainable will be considered by the trial Court at the hearing of the suit. The trial Court has merely protected the respondents’ possession since admittedly it is in possession of the suit premises. 5. In these circumstances, the trial Court has, in my opinion, rightly passed interim orders in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. There is no error committed by the trial Court requiring interference by this Court. 6. The Appeal from Order is rejected. 7. In view of the above, Civil Application No.240 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......