-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4136 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3026 OF 2007 Cinevistaas Limited ).. Appellants Versus M/s Bright Brothers Ltd. ).. Respondents Mr. V.A. Thorat a/w Mr. N.N. Vaishnawa i/b N.N. Vaishnawa & Co. for the Appellants. Mr. Haresh Jagtiani a/w Mr. N.S. Patel, Ms. Vandana Mehta, Mr. Siddhesh Bhole and Mr. Pukhraj Gupta i/b N.S. Patel & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 30TH MARCH 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The present Appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd March 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 4136 of 2007 wherein the Court declined to grant injunction in a Suit filed for specific performance. 2. The Plaintiffs on the basis of the Memorandum of -2- Understanding dated 25th January 2001 filed a Suit for specific performance. The larger property had to be divided into two different sections because of some execution proceedings as noticed in the order impugned in the present Appeal. In relation to the property, subject matter of the present Suit, certain passage was to be made available by the Defendants which is the bone of contention of the parties for completion of the contract. Clause 2(d) of the Memorandum of Undertaking provided that the vendors in case are unable to obtain an access to the said sale property within a period of three years and three months from the date of Memorandum of Understanding, for any reason whatsoever, the Memorandum of Understanding shall upon its expiry of the said period shall come to an end and as such shall stand cancelled and terminated. In the event of termination, the Plaintiffs- Appellants were entitled to the refund of Rs.2,50,000/- without any interest. In contra-distinction to this term, Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Understanding, had contemplated a different circumstance and makes it obligatory upon the Appellant that if the vendor was unable to get no objection certificate from the concerned banks, the Appellant would have the discretion to accept interest or exercise such rights whatsoever in the terms of the Agreement. It appears from the record that the passage was taken after expiry of -3- three years and three months in April 2004. However, the Respondents in the Appeal were able to get passage/access to the property in question in November 2004. However, the Appellants slept over the matter for some time and then in the year 2007 entered into agreement with the Respondents in relation thereto. 3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, they had been paying the property tax for the property during the intervening period. The learned Single Judge has weighed the equities between the parties and taking into consideration the factor against the Appellants has declined to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the Appellant and refused to grant interim injunction. The reasons given by the learned Judge are in consonance with the law and do not call for any interference. Consequently, we find no merit in the Appeal. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.