1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1786 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1265 OF 2009 M/s.Maroof Exim .. Plaintiffs Versus Sattar S/o.Ebrahim Agwan .. Defendant's Mr.Satish Mishra i/b. A.M.Saraogi for plaintiffs Mr.B.P.Shukla for defendants. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th August 2009. P.C.: 1] This is a motion by the plaintiff in a suit under section 6 of Specific Reliefs Act. 2] The prayer essentially is that the plaintiff be put back in possession pending the suit. However, it is pointed out on affidavit by the defendant that the pleadings are vague inasmuch as there are no particulars of the 2 alleged dispossession. On the other hand these are commercial premises wherein some business was being carried on by the plaintiff, but upon incurring losses, he voluntarily handed over the possession of the premises in the month of February 2009 back to defendant and this is a statement made on oath by the defendant in para 14 of the affidavit in reply. 3] In the rejoinder the plaintiff denies this position and states that the plaintiff has not removed any of their articles, goods from the premises. There is no writing, moreover, handing over possession either. 4] Considering this conflicting position but the record revealing that one Mr.Iqbal Jiwani has been inducted in the premises by the defendant, no relief of putting the plaintiff back in possession of the suit premises can be granted. No other interim relief/ prayer is pressed by the plaintiffs. However, in view of the statement that the goods and articles belonging to plaintiff have not been removed and/or substantial part of the goods are still lying in the premises, defendants' Advocate, on instructions, makes a statement that if the plaintiff desires to remove any of these articles, if 3 lying in the suit premises, he is free to do so provided, he gives an advance notice of his intention to do so to the defendant. 5] However, defendant's Advocate clarifies that only after complete inventory and identification, can the plaintiff remove these articles and he should ensure that there will be no untoward incident when the premises are being visited or inspected for this limited purpose. 6] Plaintiff's and defendant's Advocate are agreeable to the articles being removed by prior intimation of the date of inspection and removal. In the light of this agreed position, motion is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)