1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.945/2008 Mrs.Pallavi Hemant Potnis Appellant Vs. Mr.Bapu Bala Kare Respondent Mr.Vishwajit P.Sawant for the appellant Mr.Dilip Bodke for respondent Coram: S.J.Vazifdar,J. Date : 20th November,2008 P.C. 1] The impugned order warrants no interference in view of the plaint as it stands .The plaintiff/appellant has filed the suit to recover the amounts on the basis that the same are payable towards her professional services as an advocate rendered in respect of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act . There is a vague reference to an agreement in para 2 (vii) of the plaint . The expression used is ''agreed terms and conditions pertaining to professional charges''.This averment cannot possibly refer to an agreement sought to be relied upon subsequently viz. an alleged agreement dated 17.7.1991 entered into between the plaintiff's father and the defendant. This alleged agreement however does not constitute a part of the cause of action. The Trial Court was therefore justified in refusing the interim relief restraining the defendant from withdrawing the amounts deposited by the S.L.A.O.in the reference 2 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2] If the plaintiff adopts proceedings to enforce the alleged agreement dated 17.7.1991 that would be another matter. If the plaintiff adopts such proceedings and makes an application for interim relief the same would necessarily be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the impugned order .In other words the impugned order ought not to be deemed to have been upheld on the merits of the dispute regarding the alleged agreement dated 17.7.1991. It is clarified that no views on the merits/veracity of the alleged agreement dated 17.7.1991 are expressed . My order is limited on the ground that no cause of action is based on the said agreement. 3] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that although the application for withdrawal has been granted it is subject to the respondent furnishing security which has yet not been done. In the circumstances I do not consider it necessary to consider Mr.Sawant's application for stay restraining the respondent from withdrawing the amount. 4] The A.O.is accordingly dismissed.