NMS3435-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3435 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2396 OF 2009 Atiqurrehman R. Chaudhary .. Plaintiff Versus Rehana Feroz Khan and Anr. .. Defendants Mr.Rajiv Singh i/b. Chitnis & Co. for plaintiff Mr.Nainesh Amin i/b. N.N.Amin & Co. for defendant No.1. CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Date : 23rd August 2010. P.C. 1] The suit is for specific performance of an agreement referred to as MOU, a copy of which is annexed as Exh.B to the plaint. 2] Parties are stated to have purchased/agreed to sell the flat, details of which are conspicuously absent in the plaint, except a description at page 2 of the MOU. Interestingly, the name of cooperative housing society is mentioned but the numbers of share certificates and date of NMS3435-09 2 issuance are not set out. Description of flat is the only basis upon which the plaintiff claims to have agreed to pay Rs.21,25,000/- as consideration. 3] The receipt below the agreement states that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was paid in cash on 15th August 2006. There are further entries of some amounts having been paid in the months of August, October 2006 and January 2007. Plaintiff has approached this Court with a case that he has been paid Rs.8.25 lakhs and the balance consideration, therefore, remains to be paid which is to the tune of Rs.13 lakhs and odd. 4] On the other hand, the defendants have stated in the affidavit in reply that the MOU is forged and fabricated. That first defendant is a lady who is a divorcee and she was approached by the plaintiff. There was an oral agreement for purchase of the suit flat for a sum of Rs.31 lakhs. The version in para 4 of the affidavit in reply is that the MOU was never executed and that defendant No.1 is an illiterate lady knowing only Urdu language. She does not know English. She cannot read and write NMS3435-09 3 in English language and MOU is in English and, therefore, a suspect document. It is stated that pursuant to the oral agreement and payment of some amount nothing has been paid but the plaintiff has approached the police and that the police machinery is trying to force first defendant into selling the suit flat. 5] The allegations and counter allegations of pressure, force, forgery and fraud possibly led this Court to make an ad-interim order on 4th January 2010 restraining the defendants from creating any right, interest in the property viz., the suit flat which is the subject matter of the MOU. 6] At this interlocutory stage, without expressing any opinion on rival contentions so also genuineness and bonafides of plaintiff’s claim, interest of justice would be served if the defendants are restrained from alienating, encumbering, transferring or disposing of the suit flat so also parting with possession thereof in any manner till the suit is heard and disposed of. NMS3435-09 4 7] Needless to clarify that ad-interim order already granted and this interim order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties. The same has been passed noting the rival contentions and bearing in mind that serious disputes have been raised by parties. Further, the allegations and counter allegations so also pendency of criminal proceedings makes it a imminently fit case to protect the flat in question. In such circumstances, this interim order is made. Motion disposed of in terms thereof. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)