: 1 : SD IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3990 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.3990 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.3990 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.3161 OF 2008 NO.3161 OF 2008 NO.3161 OF 2008 Orbit Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ...Plaintiffs V/s. Sudha M. Gawde & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.Yadunath Chaudhary for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Milind Parab for Defendant Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Yogeshwar Bhate for Defendant No.4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2009. : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2009. : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. It is an admitted fact that the dispute between the Defendants interse is still pending in the Small Causes Court. It is also an admitted fact that pending such dispute, the Defendants were given accommodation in temporary transit building. 2. It is stated that all the occupants and transit buildings have vacated their respective premises excepting the Defendants. The Defendants have no reason to stick to their transit accommodation if their earlier status is restored in a newly constructed building. : 2 : 3. In fact the new arrangement would enhance the status of the Defendants in as much as the Defendant No.4 would get the alternative premises in the new building on ownership and Mr.Chaudhary made it clear that an agreement to that effect will be entered into. 4. It is made clear to both, the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.4, that such agreement would be subject to the Defendant Nos.1 to 3’s rights and contentions in their dispute with the Defendant No.4. The only difficulty that the Defendants would face when they are shifted to the new premises is that they would not get separate accommodation. They will have to confine themselves to the newly allotted premises which was also the case when they were occupying the old premises. 5. Besides, the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 do not have independent right qua the Plaintiffs and so the Plaintiffs apparently do not have any obligation to provide them a separate or independent accommodation. Hence the order. : 3 : "O "O "O R D E R" R D E R" R D E R" (1). There shall be order in terms of prayer clause (a). (2). The Defendant No.4 is specifically directed that he shall accommodate Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the new premises. (3). The flat number mentioned in prayer clause (a) shall be read as "203" and not "202". (4). The Plaintiffs are further directed to complete the formalities within three days and the Defendants are directed to physically occupy the new flat vacating the transit accommodation within next three days. (5). In view of this, Mr.Chaudhary does not wish to continue with the Notice of Motion and the same stands disposed of in terms of the above order. : 4 : [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.]