-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3964 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2860 OF 2009 Peter Gomes. ..Appellant. Versus Mohammed Tarique Khan & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. P. G. Lad for the appellant. Mr. A. C. Singh with Mr. Devendra Sharma for the respondents. Coram : F.. I. REBELLO & R. V. MORE, J. Date : June 8, 2010. P. C. : 1. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration that he is the owner of the property of which admittedly the defendant is the owner. The agreement is between one Sawant Kirshna Dhondu and Sony Developers who was represented by Mohd. Tarique (Nebi) Khan, one of the partners. There is no agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. What is relied upon is an affidavit purported to have been made by the defendant stating that he has accepted some money and that affidavit is made to be produced before the concerned authority for transferring the said premises on ownership basis in the name of said Sony Developers. The defendant disputes this affidavit. 2. The suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners. There sachin -: 2 :- is no suit for specific performance of the contract. In the suit a notice of motion was taken out for interim relief by way of an injunction. Learned Single Judge has noticed in his order dated 29th January 2010 that the case of the plaintiff was that one Mohd. Mustafa Khan is in possession of the premises. The case of the defendant was that one Snehlata Sawant and Mohd. Mustafa are in possession. The Court then noticed that suit is not filed by Mohd. Mustafa and as such there is no question of interim relief in favour of the plaintiffs. After having so held, learned Single Judge directs maintenance of status quo. 3. At the hearing of this appeal, it is sought to be contended by the appellants – original plaintiffs that Mohd. Mustafa is his brother. In our opinion, considering the case that Mohd. Mustafa is in possession as admitted by the plaintiff himself and the suit is not for specific performance of the contract and the finding by the Court that no interim relief can be granted, the direction to maintain status quo was in excess of jurisdiction and consequently the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (R.V. MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.) -: 3 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 706 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3964 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2860 OF 2009 Peter Gomes. ..Appellant. Versus Mohammed Tarique Khan & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. P. G. Lad for the appellant. Mr. A. C. Singh with Mr. Devendra Sharma for the respondents. Coram : F.. I. REBELLO & R. V. MORE, J. Date : June 8, 2010. P. C. : 1. As the appeal is disposed of the notice of motion has become infructuous the same is therefore disposed of as infructuous. (R.V. MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.)