- 1 - 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.2838 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.2838 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.2838 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.1847 OF 2005 NO.1847 OF 2005 NO.1847 OF 2005. Shree Riddhi Siddhi Developers. ..Plaintiffs. vs. Thakur Dalsingar Damodar Singh & Anr. ..Defendants. .... Mr.M.U. Pandey, for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Kunal, i/b. A.G. Damle, for the Defendants. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 5TH JANUARY 2009 : 5TH JANUARY 2009 : 5TH JANUARY 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 14th June 2004. The plaintiffs had earlier taken out a notice of motion being no.1988 of 2005, seeking various ad-interim and interim reliefs. After hearing the parties, ad-interim reliefs were granted in favour of the plaintiffs vide order dated 18th August 2005. By the said order, the parties to the suit were directed to maintain status-quo and an ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clause (c) was also passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. - 2 - 2. The said notice of motion no.1988/2005 came up for hearing and final disposal before this Court on 11th December 2006, when with the consent of the parties, the ad-interim relief granted on 18th August 2005 was confirmed, and the notice of motion was disposed of. 3. In July 2007, the defendants have taken out the present notice of motion for vacating the order of this Court dated 18th August 2005 which was confirmed on 11th December 2006. The only reason given by the counsel for the defendants in support of the motion is that the defendants are ready and willing to pay the amount deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant alongwith interest. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the reliefs sought by the defendant cannot be granted since the order dated 18th August 2005 was passed on merits after hearing both the parties and the same was confirmed on 11th December 2006 by consent. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the said agreement as sought in the suit and the defendants cannot be allowed to defeat the plaintiffs’ right to specific performance which right will be determined at the final disposal of the suit. - 3 - 4. In my view, the plaintiffs are correct in their submissions. The relief sought by the defendants cannot be granted because the orders dated 18 August 2005 were passed on merits, i.e. after hearing the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The said order is confirmed by consent on 11th December 2006. The order dated 18th August 2005 will, therefore, continue to be in force, pending the hearing of final disposal of the suit. No case whatsoever is made out for depriving the plaintiffs of the interim order passed in their favour on 18th August 2005 and confirmed on 11th December 2006 by consent. The notice of motion appears to have been taken out without application of mind. 5. In view thereof, the notice of motion stands dismissed with costs. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]