1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.781 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.42 OF 2008 Mrs. Kanta Gul Achhra ..Plaintiff. Vs. Vaidehi Akash Housing Private Limited ..Defendant. .... Mr. Gautam Ankhad i/b Ashwin Ankhad & Associates for the Plaintiff. Ms. Rajni Iyyer, Senior Advocate with Ms. Laxmi Murali for the Defendant. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 4th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Notice of Motion has been taken out for recall of the order passed by this Court on 21st January, 2008 declining ad interim relief. An appeal was preferred against the ad interim order. On 7th July, 2008 the appeal was withdrawn with liberty reserved to the Plaintiff to file appropriate proceedings in the event that the Notice of Motion when finally disposed of, is decided against the Plaintiff. 2 2. The ground which has been urged in support of the Notice of Motion which has been taken out for recall of the ad interim order dated 21st January, 2008 is that subsequent facts have come to light which would show that the statement which was made before this Court on behalf of the Defendant that even the plans for the free sale component had not been sanctioned and the construction work was still to begin was incorrect. An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Defendant in which it has been stated that the work of redevelopment was being carried out in which at the first instance the existing building of D. N. Nagar, Pratik Co-operative Housing Society was to be demolished and reconstructed to rehouse the existing occupants. But that part of the work was carried out with the knowledge of the Plaintiff and is now complete. This is not in dispute. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff is not concerned with the redevelopment of wing A which has been carried out thus far. On 30th January, 2008 the Municipal Corporation approved amended plans for proposed Building No.4. In the ad interim order dated 3 21st January, 2008 reasons have been indicated for declining the ad interim relief, among them being that the Plaintiff had in fact instituted a consumer complaint for the refund of Rs.10 lacs paid together with interest which was subsequently withdrawn. As such no case has been made out for recalling the order of this Court declining ad interim relief. The Motion is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that this shall not stand in the way of the final disposal of the main Notice of Motion on merits. ****