1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.628 OF 2008 and WRIT PETITION NO.1501 OF 2008. Shri Arun Nair s/o N.G.T.Nair..vs.. Shri Omprakash Laddha and others. oo00oo Shri Dilip Bharadwaj S/o H.S.Subbarayya ..vs.. Shri Omprakash Laddha and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.A.C.Dharamadhikari and A.G.Gharote, Advs. for the petitioners. Mr.N.R.Saboo and M.V.Samarth, Adv. for the respondents. Coram: J.H.BHATIA,J. Dated : 7th January 2009. 1. The respondents have filed Special Civil Suit No.371 of 2006 in the court of 5th Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Nagpur in respect of certain transactions pertaining 25% share in the total property. The order passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department of the State of Maharashtra under Section 2 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 staying the development, was challenged by one Dilip Bharadwaj and others in Writ Petition No.5597 of 2006. It appears that when the matter came up for hearing on 4/5/2007 before this court, a proposal was made on behalf of the petitioners that the matter could be disposed of on certain terms Nos.(i) to (vi) as shown in para no.13 of the judgment in that petition. It appears that the learned counsel for respondent no.5 in that petition, who is one of the plaintiffs in the suit, had taken objection to point no.5 because according to the plaintiffs, the dispute was not limited to the excess area but to the whole of the area. According to them, the sale deeds in respect of their share was in dispute. Finally, after hearing the parties the court modified point no.5 in following terms. “The entitlement of the parties vis-a-vis the property in dispute before civil court will be subject to final result of the Special Civil Suit No.571 of 2006.” With this and five other terms, the petition was disposed of. 2. It appears that the original plaintiffs in the 3 said suit have moved an application before the trial court for certain reliefs of the temporary nature pending the appeal. Mainly they have sought interim relief that the defendant should not create any third party interest and they should also display a notice board clearly stating that if any transaction creating third party interest will be subject to the result of the civil suit and that the disputed property will not encumbered by any loan. The defendants who are the petitioners before this court, objected to hearing of that application on the ground that as per above referred term no.5, the entitlement of the parties vis-a- vis the property in dispute shall be subject to final result of the Civil Suit No.371/06 and therefore, the defendants/petitioners are allowed to make the development subject to final result and as such the civil court could not hear the application for temporary relief. This contention was rejected and the trial court directed to proceed with hearing of that application by order dated 28/1/2008. That order has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4 3. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the order passed by this court in the Writ Petition No.5597/2006 carefully, I find that in the said petition the dispute was mainly between the authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the claimants of the property in respect of certain area, which was available for development. As far as dispute between the petitioners and the original plaintiffs is concerned that was neither decided nor was subject matter of that writ petition. Therefore, this court had observed that entitlement of the parties shall be subject to final result of the suit. The dispute between the present petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, and the original plaintiffs has to be decided on its own merits and the plaintiffs can certainly make an application before the trial court for certain interim reliefs pending the suit so that the interest of parties is protected. I am unable to accept the contention that in view of para no.5 of the order passed by this court in writ petition, the trial court has been prohibited or debarred from hearing any application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. I find no substance in the present petitions. 5 Therefore, both writ petitions stand dismissed. JUDGE. chute