1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5200 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1983 OF 2008 Pravin T.Somaiyya (Thakkar). ..Applicant. Vs. Smt. Yamunabai S. Mate and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.N.Joshi for the Applicant. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar,Sr.Advocate i/by S.S.Shah for the Respondent No.4. Mr.R.D.Soni for the Respondent No.5. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 4th March, 2010 PC : 1 Heard all parties. 2 Main appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the appeal the present appellant was signatory to an MOU dated 29.1.2009. This MOU was also signed by the defendants as well a third party. Subsequently the appellant filed two civil applications, one for adding the third party and for enforcement of the 2 agreement dated 29.1.2009. By an order dated 23.2.2010 I have dismissed both the civil applications by holding that the remedy of the applicant is to file a separate suit because the alleged breach of the said agreement constitutes a separate cause of action. This civil application was adjourned to enable the advocate to take instructions as to whether anything survives in the appeal. Advocate for the applicant states that he has instructions not to withdraw this civil application and the appeal as the status of the agreement dated 29.5.1992 and the non implementation thereof is one of his clients grievance. In this view of the matter, status quo granted earlier is continued subject to the clarification that the status quo will not affect the rights of the parties under the agreement dated 29.5.1992 which was entered into prior to the grant of status quo. Existence of the status quo which is being confirmed today will not come in the way of implementation of the agreement dated 29.5.1992 and 3 the rights of the parties which may arise therefrom. Civil application is disposed off. Since the first appeal now survives in a narrow compass, list the first appeal for disposal in the week commencing from 5.4.2010. Both the advocates are at liberty to file paper book. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)