1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. SUIT NO.4266 OF 1996 M/s.Swehan Enterprises. ...Plaintiff. Vs. Servashramik Sangh & Ors. ...Defendants. .... Mr.Kamal Katha i/b. M/s. Prakash & Co. for the Plaintiff. Ms.Vaishali A. Mailagir i/b.Bhavesh Parmar for the Defendants. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. January 9, 2008. P.C.: The suit is for an injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the use, occupation and enjoyment of the property more particularly described in Exhibit 'A' to the Plaint; for preventing the ingress and egress to the property inter alia by the Plaintiff; and from shouting slogan, indulging in any violence and obstructing the Plaintiff from carrying out their business activities. No Written Statement has been filed. A Company by the name of Westerworks Engineers Ltd. 2 was the owner of the property, more particularly described in Exhibit 'A' to the Plaint. It has been averred that the Company made a reference to BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in 1987. During the course of the hearing before the BIFR, an order was passed on 1st October 1993 for the sale of the assets of the Company under Section 20(4) of the Act. The Plaintiff has averred that it had made an offer for the purchase of the assets and on 28th September 1995, the BIFR confirmed the sale in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has averred that on 26th July 1996, it paid the stamp duty of Rs. 1.26 crores on the Conveyance which was executed on 31st July 1996. The Plaintiff has also averred that it is placed in possession of the assets. The conveyance is stated to have been registered with the Registrar of Assurances on 8th August 1996. The First Defendant is a Trade Union of which the Second and Third Defendants are office bearers. The Union had filed a Writ Petition for challenging the sale in favour of the Plaintiff. The petition was dismissed by an order of a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 27th August 1996. The order was confirmed in appeal by the order of a Division Bench. The cause of action for the suit was 3 that the Defendants had commenced agitation during the pendency of the writ proceedings. Police complaints were filed in the month of August 1996. An ad-interim order of injunction was passed on 13th November 1996 which was confirmed on 16th July 1998 in Notice of Motion 3297 of 1996. The suit has been placed on Board as an undefended suit for an ex-parte decree. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants states that no instructions are available. The record of the Court shows that no Written Statement has been filed. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff states that the prayer for damages is not pressed. In the absence of a Written Statement, the Court is constrained to proceed under Order 8 Rule 10 and the suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). .....