1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.101 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 120 OF 2009 Mr.Ramchandra Tikamdas Tejnani : Appellant versus Mr.Mohan Tikamdas Tejnani and ors. : Respondents. Shri. Vivek Kantawala I/by M.M.Legal Associates for the Appellant. Shri.H.H.H.Murthy for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Appeal from Order arises out of the order dated 4th December 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, by which order the Notice of Motion Ex.2 filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff came to be rejected. 2. The Appellant herein is the original Plaintiff who has filed S.C.Suit No.2190 of 2008. The said suit concerns the properties belonging to various firms which were established by the father and 2 other relatives of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has somehow made very peculiar prayers in the said suit. The prayers (a) and (b) exemplify the same and are reproduced herein under :- (a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Defendants from doing any and all such further acts which will affect the rights of the Plaintiff and/or induct any such other person and/or create third party rights, lien, title, charge and/or encumbrance in the said assets; (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Defendants not to use any such documents and deeds which are in their possession and custody by which they can represent the Plaintiff and which can jeopardize the Plaintiff's right, title, interest and claim wherein they can act on representations for and on behalf of the Plaintiff herein, thereby resulting in loss, harm and damage to the Plaintiff. 3. The Plaintiff had filed the above Notice of Motion virtually repeating the prayers made in the said Suit. As mentioned herein 3 above, the said motion has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. In reply to the said motion, the Defendants had filed an Affidavit dated 26th September 2008 of one Pradeep Lachhmandas Tejnani which affidavit was filed on behalf of the said Defendant as also the other Defendants. In terms of the reliefs sought in the suit and the motion, Paragraph 4 of the said Affidavit is relevant and is reproduced herein under :- “4. I say that in view of what is stated hereto before, it is amply clear that so far as the two properties described at Sr.Nos.A & B above the Plaintiff did not have nor does have any right of whatsoever nature at all. That it is for the sake of repetition stated that the Plaintiff has not filed the present suit for declaration of alleged or purported right in respect of the subject properties. So far as the remaining properties are concerned, it is clear from the what is contained at Sr.Nos. C to F that the said properties are the joint properties either of the family members and/or of the partnership firm of which the Plaintiff is at the highest having interest common along with the present Defendants, however, the Plaintiff does not have any 4 independent exclusive right in respect event of the said properties. The Plaintiff's right in respect of the properties described at Sr No. C to F is to the maximum as mentioned therein and as such nominal compared to the present Defendants. I say that none of the Defendants had or have any intention to deal with or dispose off any of the said properties at Sr.No. C to F above and in the event of the same being done, the Plaintiff will be provided his proportionate share in the event of any of the property being so dealt with. 5. As can be seen from the said para 4, the Defendants have made a categorical statement that the Defendants do not have any intention to deal with or dispose off any of the said properties at Sr. No. C to F above and in the event of the same being done, the Plaintiff would be provided his proportionate share in the event of any of the property being so dealt with. 6. In my view, the above Appeal from Order can be disposed of by accepting the said statement made on behalf of the Defendants 5 in the said Suit. It would be open to the Plaintiff to adopt such proceedings as are permissible in law in respect of the properties which are of the partnership firm or private limited company or ancestral wherein the Plaintiff has a share. The said statement would operate for a period of eight weeks from date. 7. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly disposed of. 8. In view of the disposal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.120 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. 9. In view of the instant order, Shri Vivek Kantawala the learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff seeks leave to withdraw the S.C.Suit No.2190 of 2008 filed by the Plaintiff before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, with liberty as mentioned in the instant order. The said S.C.Suit No.2190 of 2008 filed by the Plaintiff before the City Civil Court, Mumbai is acordingly allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as mentioned in the instant order. 6 [R.M.SAVANT, J]