AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.80 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO.307 OF 2008 Nitin Kantilal Gandhi & Anr. ... Appellants Vs. Mrs. Francina Rose Melita. ... Respondent Mr. Shailesh Shah i/b M/s. Divekar & Co. for the appellants. Mr. D.D. Madon, senior counsel i/b Sean Wasscodew for respondents 1(A), 1(B) and 2. Mr. Santosh Shetty i/b Ms. T.S. Shetty & Associates for respondent 3. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.:- 1. This notice of motion is taken out by the appellants who are original plaintiffs praying inter alia that order dated 29/9/2008 passed by this court may be recalled. AJN 2 2. The appellants claim one-third share in the suit property on the basis of the registered Assignment Deed dated 20/7/1995 executed by Allen one of the lessees, in their favour. By the order of which recall is sought, we have modified the impugned order. We have permitted the respondents to let out two flats on leave and licence basis. We have directed that the net licence fees received by them should be deposited by 15th of every month, in this court. We have directed the Prothonotary & Senior Master to invest the said amount in any of the nationalized banks on usual terms. It is further observed by us that the said amount shall abide by the final order that may be passed in the suit. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that a false statement was made before this court that all the flats have been sold. It is submitted that registered agreements in respect of some of the flats have been entered into by the respondents after the impugned AJN 3 order. It is submitted that therefore this court should recall the order and direct that the matter may be reheard or in the alternative, the respondents may be directed to deposit the sale proceeds of the flats in respect of which registered agreements have been entered into after the date of the impugned order. 4. The impugned order indicates that this contention was raised when the appeal was heard for admission. The impugned order was passed after considering these submissions. In fact, the submission of learned counsel that the respondents have not produced any registered agreements in support of their claim that the flats have been sold and only some receipts have been produced in the court, has been recorded by this court. We, therefore, cannot permit the appellants to advance the same argument once again and insist that our order be recalled. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this court should issue notice to the respondents to show AJN 4 cause why action should not be taken against them for having made a false statement. At this stage, it is not possible for us to say whether in fact any false statement was made before us. Needless to say that at the hearing of the suit, if learned Judge seized of the suit feels that the respondents had made any false statement, appropriate order will be passed by him. 6. Notice of motion is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [K.K. TATED, J.]