1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3527 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2174 OF 2009 Dr. Bhatia K. Jamnadas & Ors. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Poonamchand N. Shah & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti a/w. Mahesh Vaswani & Sana Yusuf Baugwala for the Plaintiffs. Mr. V.M. Vaghela for Defendant 1. Mr. Shailesh Shah a/w. Pankaj Kawli i/b. V.B. Tiwari & Co. for Defendant 2. Mr. J.G. Reddy for Defendant 3. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 17th DECEMBER 2009. P.C. :- This is a Notice of Motion by the First Defendant seeking substantive reliefs and virtually final directions to the Plaintiffs to pay to the Slum Rehabilitation Authorities a sum of Rs. 3,92,04,110/- in terms of an order dated 9th September 2009 of the 3rd Defendant. Prayer clause (b) is to vacate the ad- interim order dated 13th July 2009 and prayer clause (c) is to dismiss the Suit on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. 2. As far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, it is apparent that the First Defendant will have to institute his own proceedings and seek such reliefs. In the Plaintiffs’ Suit, such 2 an order and that too at an interlocutory stage cannot be passed. As far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, there is a Notice of Motion being Notice of Motion No.3856 of 2009 pending and which is on Board. The First Defendant has filed his affidavit with regard to the order passed on 13th July 2009. Therefore, no orders and directions are required as far as this prayer is concerned. 3. As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, it is apparent that the plaint will have to be read as a whole on the basis of the plaint averments and on demurer as well, it cannot be said that the private dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is out of the purview of Civil Court’s jurisdiction. Ultimately, the project may be a Slum Rehabilitation Authorities project but rights and contentions of developers inter-se in terms of the documents executed in their favour, and the matters fall within the purview of this Court’s jurisdiction, prima-facie. In such circumstances, prayer clause (c) also cannot be granted. 4. As a result, this Notice of Motion is dismissed. No costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)