: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.687 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.3012 OF 2006 Sybil Patrick Dias & Anr. ....Plaintiffs V/s. Maurice Miranda & Ors. ....Defendants Mr.Charanjit Singh for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Rajiv Narulla i/b Jhangiani Narulla & Associates for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 9TH JULY, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Notice of Motion has been taken out for an order restraining the Defendants from parting with possession of or creating any third party rights in the suit property ; for appointment of a Court Receiver in respect of the suit property and for an order directing the Defendants to disclose the documents relating to third party rights created, if any. 2. By an order dated 11.6.2008, the learned Judge recorded the statement on behalf of the : 2 : Defendants that an agreement with third parties would be disclosed. Mr.Narulla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants states that an application for having this order corrected is made. However, it is not necessary to await the out come of any order on that application considering the view that I have taken. 3. The suit is filed for a declaration that the original Defendant along with others was the co-owner of the suit property being land admeasuring about 3169 sq.mtrs. and for a declaration that the deed of conveyance dated 5.8.2005 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 is null and void. The original Plaintiff had also sought a declaration that the deed of release executed by her - original Plaintiff and other co-owners in favour of Defendant No.1 is null and void. 4. The original Plaintiff along with four others including Defendant No.1 were co-owners of the land. The original Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and other three co-owners are brothers and sisters. 5. The release deeds were executed between the years 1945 and 1959 whereby the co-owners released their right, title and interest in respect of the suit : 3 : property in favour of Defendant No.1. The release deeds were registered. 6. The original Plaintiff having expired, her heirs have been brought on record. 7. The Plaintiffs’ case is that in 1980 the co-owners made an application to the Tahsildar to include all their names in the record of rights. On 28.3.1981, the Tahsildar with the consent of the co-owners added their names. This of course is challenged by the Defendants on 28.11.2007. 8. Further according to the Plaintiffs in 1987 the co-owners granted development rights in respect of the property in favour of Plaintiff No.1(i). Apparently between the years 1987 and 1.2.1990, there has been no objection to the same. Ultimately, the proceedings under the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopments), 1971 commenced in respect of the suit property. The suit property was declared to be a slum and a scheme for development thereof was sanctioned by the authorities under the said Act. Pursuant thereto, on or about 26.8.2005, the construction commenced by Defendant No.2 who was appointed as the developer under the said scheme. : 4 : 9. In May, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed an Appeal before the Maharashtra Slum Tribunal, challenging the declaration of the suit land as a slum and a scheme for development thereof sanctioned by the authorities. During the pendency of the appeal, the present suit was filed on 22.9.2006. In view of the pendency of the Appeal, no ad-interim orders were passed in an earlier Notice of Motion being Notice of Motion No.3650 of 2006. In that Notice of Motion, the only relief claimed was to restrain this Defendant No.2 from constructing pursuant to the scheme. 10. By an order dated 22.12.2006, the Plaintiffs’ Appeal before the Maharashtra Slum Tribunal was dismissed. This order was challenged by the Plaintiffs by filing Writ Petition No.3045 of 2007. It is pertinent to note that in the Writ Petition, several reliefs had been claimed including for setting aside of the judgment of the Slum Tribunal dated 22.12.2006 and the declaration of the property as a slum vide order dated 16.9.2004. It is even more important to note that in prayer (c) the Plaintiffs sought an order declaring that the sanctioned scheme be declared as null and void. In prayer (d) the Plaintiffs sought a declaration that they have exclusive right to implement the scheme and that : 5 : Defendant No.2 has no right, title and/or interest to interfere with the development thereof. Interim reliefs in these terms were also sought. 11. By an order dated 4.5.2007 in the said Writ Petition, it was ordered that further actions of the Respondents would be subject to the final out-come of the Writ Petition. Finally, the Writ Petition, I am informed was admitted by an order dated 14.12.2007. I am informed by both the counsel that no interim reliefs were granted. 12. Thus in view of the proceedings before this Court in the Writ Petition, it is now not open for this Court to grant any interim reliefs. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs admits that the issues which fall for consideration in the suit were also raised before the Slum Tribunal and in the Writ Petition. The facts are identical. Interim reliefs were not granted in the Writ Petition. 13. The scheme sanctioned by the authorities under the said Act not having been stayed it would also not be equitable to grant any interim reliefs at this stage. Admittedly under the scheme, rehabilitation units were also to be constructed. They were constructed and the parties have been put in : 6 : possession of their respective units. In these circumstances, it would be inequitable to restrain the second Defendant from dealing with the sale component. In a scheme such as this the right to deal with the sale component/free sale component is a part and parcel of the entire scheme. 14. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.