1 nms2953-09group ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2953 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2036 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3625 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2483 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3626 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2482 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3628 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2433 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3629 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2481 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3630 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2434 OF 2009 Haroon Rashid Nizamuddin Umatiya .. Plaintiffs Vs. Pankti Developers P.Ltd. and Ors. .. Defendants 2 nms2953-09group Mr.E.K.Sasidharan for the plaintiffs Mr.Satish Shetye i/b Prakash and Co. for the defendants CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : December 21, 2010 P.C. : 1. The plaintiffs have filed these suits for a declaration that conveyance executed on 21.12.2006 by defendant nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of the immovable property more particularly described in prayer clause (a) of the plaint is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. 2. In the plaint itself the plaintiff has stated that defendant no.2 was owner and title holder of the property which is subject matter of the suit and which is part of a larger property. Plaintiff has stated that by Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.03.2001, defendant no.2 had agreed to sell to the plaintiffs ownership rights in 41 pieces or parcels of land or ground for a total consideration of Rs.30 lacs. That property is described as said property. Further it is stated that defendant no.3 is claiming the right in the property under some purported MOU executed by defendant no.2 whereas defendant no.1 is claiming ownership rights under different conveyance deeds executed in his favour by defendant nos.2 and 3. 3. However, it is not disputed before me that as far as plaintiff s claim of ’ specific performance of an agreement dated 26.3.2001 is concerned, he has instituted a suit being suit no.2967 of 2001 which is stated to be pending. In 3 nms2953-09group that suit, an application for interim relief was made which application has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this court on 3.12.2003 by a reasoned order. 4. The plaintiff has stated that by virtue of the amendment that he is required to carry out impleading defendant nos.2 and 3, because the attempt to implead defendant no.1 in his suit no.2967 of 2001 had not succeeded and therefore, he was required to file a substantive suit. Therefore, he can claim interim relief in this suit and the order passed in his suit does not prevent him from adopting such course. 5. To my mind for the reasons that persuaded the learned single Judge to deny interim relief and primarily on the ground that plaintiff has failed to make out prima face case of their being an agreement of sale in his favour from the original owner, the conveyance deed executed by the original owner in favour of defendant no.1 now cannot be assailed at this stage. Plaintiff is at liberty to adopt the same course namely register the pendency of this suit so that at the final stage the persons claiming through the defendants and particularly defendant no.1 be on guard about the pendency of this suit. Equally upon a lis pendens being registered, it is clear that all acts of the parties to the suit will have to aside by the outcome of both suits and they cannot claim any equities in that behalf. Observing thus, these notices of motion are dismissed. No order as to costs. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )