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 APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 649 OF 2006 NO. 649 OF 2006 NO. 649 OF 2006 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2160 OF 2003 OF MOTION NO. 2160 OF 2003 OF MOTION NO. 2160 OF 2003 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 2324 OF 2003 NO. 2324 OF 2003 NO. 2324 OF 2003 Sagar Jangid ] .. Appellant (Ori.Plaintiff) Versus 1. New Sanjay Nagar SRA Co-op. Housing ] .. Respondents Society Ltd. & 2 ors. ](Ori.Defendants) Mr. Shailesh Shah with Mr. N.M. Shah for the appellant. Mr. P.K. Samdani, senior counsel with Mr. M.G. Gawde for the respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M. LODHA, & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED: 06TH NOVEMBER, 2006 P.C. : . We heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant (original plaintiff) had only entered into an agreement with the respondent No.2 (defendant No.2). It is admitted by the counsel for the appellant that the property belonged to the defendant No.1 (respondent No.1). According to him, the defendant No.2 was : 2 : permitted to develop the property by defendant No.1. It is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 ultimately terminated the contract which he had with defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 appears to have then entered into contract subsequently with defendant No.3 and the defendant No.3 has, accordingly, developed the property. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 nor between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. Though before the learned Motion Judge, a plea was sought to be set up that the defendant No.3 orally assured the plaintiff that he would honour the agreement (MOU dated 27th July, 2000) which the plaintiff had with defendant No.2, nothing was shown to the learned Motion Judge to prima facie establish such oral assurance. There is no semblance of right, prima facie, in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and, therefore, the learned Motion Judge cannot be said to have erred in dismissing the Notice of Motion. 3. The Appeal has no merit and is dismissed in limine. Sd/- [R.M. [R.M. [R.M. LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] Sd/- [S.A. [S.A. [S.A. BOBDE, J.] BOBDE, J.] BOBDE, J.]