1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1220 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1492 OF 2008 Shri Kedar Amir Chunawala : Appellant. Versus Shri Santosh Satyawan Parab & Anr. : Respondents. Shri A.J. Rizvi for the Appellant. Shri D.S. Sakhalkar i/by Mrs.Nutan Maily for Respondent No.1. Shri Utangale i/by M/s. Utangale & Co. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 03, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 1st April 2008 passed by the learned 3rd Ad-Hoc Asstt.Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, by which order the Notice of Motion No.4057 of 2006 filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. The dispute in the suit is as regards the re-development of a property occupied by a slum under Rule 33 (10) of the Development Control Regulations. The Plaintiff claims to be the 2 owner of a structure in the nature of a chawl situated at Kader Sheth Compound, Near Police Head Quarters, Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 059. The Plaintiff entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 8th June 2001 with the Defendant No.1 i.e the Respondent No.1 herein to which Memorandum of Understanding the proposed housing society of the slum dwellers was also a signatory. Thereafter the Plaintiff also executed a Power of Attorney of the same date in favour of the Defendant No.1. 3. In terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 8th June 2001, the Plaintiff was to get consent of the owner of the property viz. A H Wadia Trust and the consent of the adjoining owner i.e. Mrs.Maggie Paul Carnello within two months. If the Plaintiff failed to get the said permission, the consequences were mentioned in the said Memorandum of Understanding. Admittedly, the Plaintiff failed to get the said permission within the time stipulated in the said Memorandum of Understanding and ultimately secured the permission on 7/11/2001 from A H Wadia Trust which was delivered to the Respondent No.1 on 27/1/2002. The Plaintiff thereafter has 3 terminated the said Development Agreement and the Power of Attorney on 25/8/2002 and 29/9/2003 respectively. The Plaintiff therefore filed S.C Suit No.453 of 2006 seeking declaration that the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 8th June 2001 and the Power of Attorney have been properly revoked and cancelled by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff in the said suit filed a Notice of Motion claiming temporary injunction against the Defendant No.1 as also claiming injunction that the Defendant No.2 i.e. the SRA be restrained from acting in furtherance of the proposal of redevelopment submitted by the Defendant No.1. 4. The trial Court, on the basis of the clauses of the said Memorandum of Understanding, was of the view that the Plaintiff had prematurely terminated the said Development Agreement as well as the Power of Attorney. The trial Court was of the view that the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the Defendant No.1 could not be revoked as there was no revocation clause in it. The trial Court also took into consideration the fact that to the said Memorandum of Understanding, the Society of the occupants/slum dwellers was a 4 signatory and, therefore, the said Society was a party and the occupants/slum-dwellers of the said Society are most likely to be prejudiced, if the redevelopment scheme is not implemented. The trial Court, therefore, considering the fact that the said redevelopment scheme was to enure to the benefit of the occupants of the structures, was of the view that the said Memorandum of Understanding signed by three parties i.e. The Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 and the Society of the slum dwellers could not be unilaterally cancelled or revoked by the Plaintiff alone. The trial Court was, therefore, of the view that the Plaintiff is not made out any case for restraining the Defendants from further proceeding with the development proposal based on the earlier Memorandum of Understanding signed by the concerned parties. Significantly, the said Society of the slum dwellers is not even a party to the said Suit as also the instant Appeal. 5 5. Having considered the reasons mentioned by the trial Court in the impugned order as also having considered that admittedly the revocation is only at the instance of the Plaintiff, in my view, the reasons cited by the trial Court in the impugned order do not merit any interdiction at the hands of this Court at this stage. 6. Since the issue involved in the said suit lies in narrow compass, in my view, the interest of justice would be served if hearing of the said suit is directed to be expedited and is directed to be disposed of by 31st December 2009. 7. The above Appeal from order is accordingly dismissed. 8. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal, the Civil Application No.1492 of 2008 accordingly stands disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]