rpa IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2007 NO. 735 OF 2007 NO. 735 OF 2007 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2110 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO. 2110 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO. 2110 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 510 OF 2007 NO. 510 OF 2007 NO. 510 OF 2007 Anil Dupte .. Appellant. Vs. Amogh Sawant .. Respondent. Mr.P.M. Havnur for Appellant. Mr. Swanand G. i/b.M.G.Gawbe for Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P.DEVADHAR,J. J.P.DEVADHAR,J. J.P.DEVADHAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 16th JANUARY, 2008 : 16th JANUARY, 2008 : 16th JANUARY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of money alongwith interest and had prayed for other reliefs including that during the pendency of the suit the Defendants be restrained from using the material of the Plaintiff lying in the premises of the Defendants for completing the balance construction work. Alongwith this reliefs in the plaint interim reliefs were also prayed for. The suit was contested by the defendants. ( 2 ) . The Plaintiff took out Notice of Motion No.2110 of 2007 and prayed for interim relief which was rejected by the learned single Judge by his order dated 4th September, 2007 which is the order impugned in the present Appeal. In the said impugned order the learned Judge observed that the interim order prayed for by the Plaintiff was in the nature of the final relief claimed in the suit and the Plaintiff can claim damages and therefore it was not possible to settle all the dispute at the stage of Notice of Motion and consequently dismissed the Motion. 3. The relief claimed by the Plaintiff in the suit are one for recovery of money and for prohibitory orders. It is not in dispute before us that after filing of the suit on 16th May 2007, the construction of the building has been completed and any interference at this stage would not be of any consequence. In the circumstances, we see no need to interfere with the order of learned single Judge dated 4th September, 2007, however, it is made clear that the said order shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties. The Appellant would be at liberty to prove his case during the trial. The value ( 3 ) of the material which is claimed to be lying in the premises and as well as the extent of damages would depend upon the construction carried out. This Appeal is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the plaintiff to prove his case before the single Judge. 4. Parties are left to bear their own costs. CHIEF CHIEF CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE J.P.DEVADHAR, J.P.DEVADHAR, J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J. J.