: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4280 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.3049 OF 2003 M/s.Ishwara Enclave Co-op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. M/s.Nikhileshwara Buildcon India . Limited and others ....Defendants Ms.Sujata Patil i/b M/s.Shaunak Satpute & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr.J.S. Chandani for Defendant No.3. Ms.Mushraf Bukhari i/b M/s.D.H. Law Associates for Defendant No.4. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. : 1. By this Notice of Motion, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 seek an order modifying an order dated 1.2.2006 passed by S.U. Kamdar, J. (as he then was) in Notice of Motion No.2866 of 2003. By the said order, the learned Judge directed inter-alia as follows :- " ................................ In so far arrears are concerned, the defendant is directed to deposit the same from 18.12.2003 till date in this Court. The learned counsel for the defendant states that he has not received the said amount from the : 2 : defendant No.4. In that light of the matter the defendant No.4 is directed to deposit the arrears of compensation within the period of four weeks from today in this Court...................." 2. The modification sought is to the effect that the arrears ought to be paid only from 5.11.2004 and not from 18.12.2003. 3. There is no ground for modification. There is nothing to suggest that the date 18.12.2003 was stipulated inadvertently. In fact there was obvious reason for fixing the date as 18.12.2003. By an ad-interim order dated 18.12.2003 it was recorded that Defendant No.1 had undertaken that in the event of it being ordered to bring back any amount pursuant to the licence granted by Defendant No.4, it would do so. 4. It was contended however that the learned Judge ought to have fixed the date 5.11.2004 in view of an order dated 27.1.2004 passed by the Appeal Court in Appeal No.78 of 2004. This Appeal was filed by the Plaintiff against the ad-interim order dated 18.12.2003. In addition to the undertaking, the Appeal Court had directed Respondent No.2 therein on behalf of Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 to furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. By an : 3 : order dated 30.8.2004, the S.L.P. was dismissed. Thereafter the Appeal Court extended the time to furnish solvent surety upto 5.11.2004. 5. There is absolutely no relevance between the date 5.11.2004 and the date 18.12.2003 for the purpose of the present application. The provision for solvent surety was an additional stipulation. The order passed by S.U. Kamdar, J. in fact only gives effect to the undertaking of the first Defendant recorded in the order dated 18.12.2003 after having come to the conclusion that Defendant No.1 ought to bring back the amount. 6. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. Defendant No.1 shall pay the costs of this Notice of Motion to the Plaintiff fixed at Rs.5,000/- within four weeks from today.