-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 308 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1212 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 1099 OF 2010. Rajkumar R. Khuswaha & Anr. ..Appellants. Versus The Municipal Commissioner, ..Respondents. Mr. A. C. Singh i/b Gaurav Agrawal for the appellants. Mr. Shailesh Shah with Mr. F. Pooniwala a/w Mr. Y. R. Shah for respondent no.1. Mr. P. M. Shah for respondent nos. 5 to 8. Coram : F.. I. REBELLO & R. V. MORE, JJ. Date : June 15, 2010. P. C. : 1. The appellants who are original defendant nos. 1 & 2 in the suit have preferred this appeal against the order dated 23rd April 2010 where at an ad-interim stage the learned Judge has directed the order of status quo against the present appellants. That was based on the order of status quo passed in another suit, being Suit No. 2965 of 2006 filed by the present respondent no.1 against the present appellant nos. 5 to 8. In Suit No. 2965 of 2006 the subject matter is CTS No. 352, 357 and 400 sq. mtrs of CTS. No. 360 in which respondent no.1 claims development and other rights from respondent nos. 5 to 8. 2. Insofar as the present appellants are concerned, they have srp -: 2 :- claimed rights only for the development of the portion of CTS.No. 360 other than 400 sq. mtrs which is claimed by present respondent no.1. 3. Another controversy on behalf of respondent 1 is that the 3 plots have since been amalgamated into one plot and in the development plan approved it is not possible to ascertain what is the set back area which has come from each plot and who is entitled to develop the same. This latter controversy has not yet been addressed to by the learned Judge, as that appears not to have been raised at the ad-interim stage. 4. The short question which we are called upon to deal is whether the learned Judge was right in ordering the status quo in the present suit in view of the order passed in Suit No. 2965 of 2006. Considering that the appellant and respondent no.1 have development rights over different portions of the property from respondent nos. 5 to 8, in our opinion, the order of status quo in Suit No.2965 of 2006 was not relevant in the present proceedings. 5. In the light of that we set aside the said order with the following directions. (i) The present appellant will not carry out any development in Original CTS. No. 352, 357 and to the extent of 400 sq. mtrs in CTS. No. 360 nor they shall use the FSI of the set back area. (ii)Insofar as the set back area is concerned, the development would -: 3 :- be subject to the order to be passed by the learned Judge in Notice of Motion which is pending before him. (iii)Considering the controversy, the learned Judge is requested to dispose of the present Notice of Motion as well as the notice of motion in Suit No. 2965 of 2006. (iv)Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. (R.V. MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.)