1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1067 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.827 OF 2008 Natwar Manilal Doshi & Ors. ......Plaintiffs. V/s Gaurav N. Bhadreshwara & Anr. ......Defendants. ---- Mr. R.C. Kaushik for the plaintiffs. Mr. S.R. Kothari for defendant No.1. Mr. Sahil Mahajan i/b Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal for defendant No.2. ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned Counsel for the defendants. 2. Plaintiffs have file this suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 15/11/2007. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, by the said agreement, the defendants had agreed to sell the suit flat to the plaintiffs for total consideration of Rs 55,83,106/-. Initially, on execution of the said agreement, an amount of Rs 1,00,0001/- was paid by the plaintiffs. 3. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that defendant No.1 2 was under an obligation to comply with the conditions which were imposed in the said agreement and due to non-compliance of the said conditions the balance consideration was not paid. It is submitted that, therefore, though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, defendants had chosen not to comply with the conditions imposed in the said clause. It is, therefore, submitted that the defendants may be restrained by an order of injunction from creating any third party rights in respect of the suit flat. 4. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the defendant No.2 has informed the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 was not the owner of the suit flat and already third party rights have been created by defendant No.2 who is the builder of the said building. Further, defendant No.1 has terminated the agreement on the ground that balance consideration has not been paid within a period of 30 days from the date of execution of the agreement. Under these circumstances, therefore, no interim relief can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, at the most, would be entitled to seek damages from defendant No.1 and for other consequential reliefs. Notice of Motion is, therefore, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 3