NMS346-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.346 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.3209 OF 2009 M/s.Sapphire Land Development Pvt.Ltd. ... Plaintiff Versus M/s.Maruti Enterprises & Ors. ... Defendants Mr.V.Krishna i/b. Juris Consillis for plaintiff Mr.Mihir Jani i/b. Mahesh Jani & Co. for defendant Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 1st October 2010. P.C.: 1] Heard Mr.Krishna for plaintiffs. On the earlier occasion Mr.Krishna was at pains to point out that prima facie observation in this Court’s interim order that the suit claim is barred by limitation is erroneous, it is contended that the letters on which reliance is placed have not been received by the plaintiffs and, therefore, there is no question of the claim being barred on the basis that refusal to perform the agreement was made known to the plaintiff as early as in September 2004 and the instant suit being filed much beyond the NMS346-10 2 period of 3 years is time barred. 2] Time was given to Mr.Krishna to file rejoinder affidavit which he has filed and on perusal of the same, it is apparent that the plaintiff was carrying on business at the address mentioned in the letters 19th July 2004 and 2nd September 2004. Therefore, to urge that the same were never received does not seem to be prima facie a correct stand. 3] Now, the argument, faced with this letter, by the Advocate is that the letter purports to terminate the agreement dated 23rd February 2003 and there is no such agreement of this date. The suit agreement is of 26th February 2003. Mr.Krishna would urge that for the first time in the written statement, the defence urged that there is a typographical error and the date 23rd should read as 26th February 2003. 4] Be that as it may, having perused the plaint and annexures thereto so also written statement and the affidavits on records, I am of NMS346-10 3 the opinion that prima facie claim of the plaintiffs seems to be beyond time. Further, the agreement being of 2003 and the plaintiff having only paid the earnest money component, this is a fit case where the plaintiff should register pendency of this suit/ lis. The case is not fit for grant of any interim injunction much less in the terms prayed. Motion dismissed. All observations are tentative and prima facie and should not influence the court while trying the suit. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)