IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JUDICATURE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2571 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 66 OF 1996 Arun Gopinath Vadhavkar & anr...... Plaintiffs versus Vishnu Narayan Vadhavkar & anr..........Defendants Mr. Cyrus Bharucha i/b Daphtary Ferretra & Divan adv. for the Plaintiff. Mr. P. G. Lad adv. for the defendant no.2. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 08TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.: 1. By the present suit the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.2 in regard to 50% undivided share in the suit property is null and void. According to the plaintiff under an agreement executed by the father of the Plaintiffs with the defendant no.1 a right of pre-emption has been vested in the plaintiffs, for purchase of the defendant no.1’s share. At a later point of time the said agreement which vests the plaintiff with the right of pre-emption has been diluted to the extent of 3rd floor premises which are admittedly in possession of the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 is also in possession of one flat premises on the ground floor. The legality or otherwise of the sale deed can only be gone into at the time of final disposal of the suit. Be it as it may, by filing the present Notice of Motion the plaintiffs are seeking direction against defendant no.2 not to sell and/or alienate or transfer any part of the suit property and/or create any interest in favour of the 3rd party pending decision of the suit as the plaintiffs are apprehending creation of third party interest. The plaintiffs have also prayed for reliefs in the Notice of Motion which are in the nature of issuance of mandatory directions to the defendant no.2. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for quite sometime the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 in all fairness makes a statement that the defendant no.2 shall not alienate, sell or transfer and/or create any third arty interest in the suit premises till disposal of the suit. The statement is accepted. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 no orders need to be passed touching the prayer clause (a) of Notice of Motion. The learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press prayer clause (b) at this stage and seeks liberty to move an appropriate application, if need be. In the result, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for defendant no.2 no orders are passed touching the prayer clause (a), and prayer clause (b) stands rejected as not pressed at this stage. Liberty is granted as prayed by the learned counsel for the defendant to move an application touching prayer clause (b), Motion stands disposed of. 3. Stand over to 25th June 2009 for placing on record the draft issues. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J.)