SRJ 1 ao-814-09(group).sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1012 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.814 OF 2009 Shantilal L. Jain .. Applicant V/s. Mrs. Chandralekha V. Shukla & Another .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1094 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.472 OF 2010 Mrs. Chandralekha V. Shukla & Another .. Applicants V/s. Shantilal L. Jain .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1093 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.473 OF 2010 Mrs. Chandralekha V. Shukla & Another .. Applicants V/s. Praveenkumar L. Jain .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1013 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.815 OF 2009 Arvindkumar L. Jain .. Applicant V/s. Mrs. Chandralekha V. Shukla & Another .. Respondents. SRJ 2 ao-814-09(group).sxw WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1014 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.816 OF 2009 Praveenkumar L. Jain .. Applicant V/s. Mrs. Chandralekha V. Shukla & Another .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1015 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.817 OF 2009 Praveenkumar L. Jain .. Applicant V/s. Mrs. Chandralekha V. Shukla & Another .. Respondents. Shri Pravin Samadhani a/w. Shri Y.R.Sharma i/b. Smt. Rita Abraham, for the Appellant. Shri G.S.Godbole i/b. Ms. Shakuntala A. Mudbidri, for the Appellants in A.O.Nos.472/10 and 473/10. Shri G.S.Godbole i/b. Ms. Shakuntala A. Mudbidri, for the Respondents. Shri Pravin Samadhani a/s. Shri Y.R.Sharma i/b. Smt. Rita Abraham, for the Respondent in A.O.Nos.472/10 and 473/10. CORAM :J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE :3rd MAY, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. First four appeals are filed by the original plaintiffs who had filed four different suits bearing nos.23, 34, 25 and 26 of 2008 for specific performance of the certain contract as per the agreement dated 10th December, 2006 entered into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 in SRJ 3 ao-814-09(group).sxw respect of certain immovable property. When the agreement was entered into, there were certain family dispute and litigation was pending against Defendant No.1 and his relatives. According to the Plaintiff, the contract was to be performed after the family dispute would come to an end. The said dispute came to an end and that suit came to be disposed of on 22nd February, 2007. The Plaintiff issued notice dated 7th January, 2008 to Defendant No.1 to perform the contract. However, in reply to that notice, Defendant No.1 by his reply/notice dated 7th February, 2008, terminated the contract. On 19th April, 2008, the Defendant No.2 entered into an agreement with Defendant No,1 for transfer of the suit property to him and as per the agreement, certain postdated cheques were issued to the Defendant No.1. Conveyance Deeds were executed but were made subject to realization of the said cheques. In the said agreement also, a reference to dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 was made and thus it was clear to Defendant No.2 that he had entered into the said contract with Defendant No.1. with the full knowledge of earlier agreement between Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff. It may be noted here that according to Defendants, there was no contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 but there was also only a memorandum of understanding to enter into contract. After the Conveyance Deed was executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff filed four suits for specific performance of contract on 11th June, 2008. SRJ 4 ao-814-09(group).sxw Earlier, the Plaintiff had filed an application to restrain the Defendants from creating any third party interest and application was granted and the order passed by the Trial Court was maintained by the High Court in Appeal. 2. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed six applications seeking directions that the different post dated cheques issued by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 should not be en-cashed. The Trial Court granted that relief in respect of two applications and that order is challenged by the Defendants in Appeal Nos.742 and 473 of 2010. Four similar applications were rejected and therefore, the Plaintiffs have filed 1st referred four Appeals. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, following order will meet the end of justice. The order passed by the Trial Court in Suit No.24 of 2008 and 25 of 2008 restraining the Defendant No.1 from encashing the cheques is hereby set aside. Defendant No.1 in all the four suits shall be at liberty to encash the cheques already issued or to be issued by the Defendant No.2 towards the consideration of the Conveyance Deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of them. However, these payments shall not create any equity in favour of Defendant No.2 in respect of the suits. SRJ 5 ao-814-09(group).sxw 4. The Trial Court shall expedite the hearing of all the suits and dispose of the same as early as possible and preferably within one month on their own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in this order. All these appeals stands disposed of accordingly. 5. In view of the disposal of the appeals, Civil Applications therein do not survive and stand dispose of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)