-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 317 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1390 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 3301 OF 1996 Minakshi Mahendra Pitroda. ..Appellant. Versus Kusumben Devchand Rathod & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. R. N. Bhagattjee for the appellant. Mr. P. K. Samdani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kamat i/b M/s. Shiralkar & Co., for respondent nos. 1A to 6. Mr. Zubin Behram Kamdin with Mr. Rohit Pandey i/b M/s. Vimal & Co., for the respondent no. 10A. Coram : F.. I. REBELLO & R. V. MORE, J. Date : June 7, 2010. P. C. : 1. The appellant – original plaintiff filed Suit No.3301 of 1996 for declaration that the order dated 4th August 1992 passed by this Court in OOCJ Suit No. 931 of 1971 permitting the withdrawal of the said suit on the purported grounds of “settled out of Court” is fraudulent collusive, void and illegal and the plaintiff as well as defendant no.14 are not bound by the same; that defendant nos. 1 to 6 have no right to deal with and/or dispose of the half share of the plaintiff and defendant no.14 herein in favour of defendant nos. 7 to 10 and the agreement of sale dated 28th January 1994 does not create any right, title and interest in favour of -: 2 :- defendant nos. 7 to 18 so far as the half share of the plaintiff and defendant no. 14 is concerned. The appellant also prayed for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds and order that half of the said property or value thereof upon its sale be given to the plaintiff and defendant no.14. The appellant has alternatively sought a decree for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- towards her 1/4th share as per the particulars of claim annexed as Exhibit- “W” to the plaint and for consequential reliefs of appointment of Court Receiver and injunction. 2. In this suit the appellant filed Notice of Motion No. 1390 of 2010 for direction to defendant nos. 1A to 10A to disclose all monies received and agreement entered into with third parties in respect of suit land and also disclose the documents such as IOD, CC from the competent authority for development carried on at the suit property. Temporary injunction is also claimed against defendant Nos. 1A to 10A restraining them, their servants, employees, agents, administrators, assigns or any person claiming through them from inducting or creating third party interest or parting with the possession of the suit property. The direction was also sought against the defendants to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. The Court Receiver was also requested to be appointed in respect of the suit property for the purpose of maintaining possession of the property. 3. Learned Single Judge by her order dated 7th May 2010 dismissed the said notice of motion which order is impugned in the present appeal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having -: 3 :- gone through the impugned order alongwith compilation of the appeal memo we do not find any merit in the appeal for the reasons stated hereinbelow. 5. The Father of appellant and respondent no. 14 had filed Suit No. 931 of 1971 against respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein for obtaining their 1/2 share in the suit property. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the appellant’s father expired on 28th February 1980 leaving behind his widow – Hemlata, plaintiff and defendant no.14 as legal heirs. According to the appellant, the said suit No.931 of 1971 was withdrawn as settled out of Court on 5th August 1992 on the basis of fraudulent declaration of late Natvarlal, the constituted attorney of appellant and respondent no.14. The appellant and respondent no.14 took out Notice of Motion no.1709 of 1995 in Suit No.931 of 1971 for setting aside the withdrawal of Suit No. 931 of 1971. The said notice of motion was rejected on 7th October 1997. The plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit for setting aside withdrawal of Suit No. 931 of 1971 and took out Notice of Motion No.2931 of 1996. The prayers in Notice of Motion No.2931 of 1996 and the prayers in the present notice of motion are similar. This Court by order dated 7th October 1996 refused the ad-interim relief in Notice of Motion No. 2931 of 1996 and thereafter by the order dated 20th January 1998 dismissed the said notice of motion. The appellant’s appeal No. 336 of 1998 against the dismissal of the above notice of motion was also dismissed. 6. The present notice of Motion is taken out for the reliefs similar to the -: 4 :- reliefs claimed in earlier Notice of Motion No. 2931 of 1996, after 14 years of filing of suit only on the ground that declaration of late Natvarlal is forged one. Whether the said affidavit/declaration is outcome of forgery or not is a matter of evidence. The issue regarding forgery can be decided only after allowing the parties to lead evidence and not at an interim stage. Be that as it may, the appellant by virtue of prayer clause (d) has claimed damages in the alternative and in lieu of her alleged share in the suit property to the extent of Rs.75 lacs. In the above circumstances, in our view, the appellant is not entitled for reliefs as claimed in the notice of motion. We find that the learned Single Judge after appreciating the facts on record, has passed the correct order and therefore no interference is called for. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.)