RAMCHARITRA R SINGH Vs. RAMESH L AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 2 is a partnership firm M/s. Atithi Builders. Defendant No. 3 is the Secretary, State of maharashtra, Urban Development Department. Defendant No. 4 is the additional Collector and Competent Authority under the u. L. C. Act. Defendant No. 5 is the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. Defendant No. 6, Vinod b. Mistry is an Advocate of this Court. Defendant No. 7 is one Nipun Ishwardas thakkar carrying on business in the firm name and style M/s. Ami Corporation Builders and Developers, as the sole proprietor thereof. Defendant No. 8 is the Municipal corporation of Greater Mumbai.

(2.) The Plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of two agreements, dated 29. 3. 1982 and 7. 4. 1982. The Plaintiff has also sought a declaration that certain orders, directions and agreements between some of the Defendants inter se are null and void. For the purpose of this order, it is necessary to consider only the plaintiffs case for specific performance. Had the Plaintiff made out a case for specific performance, I may have considered protecting the Plaintiffs rights at least at this ad interim stage without going in detail into the other questions. (a) By this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has sought interim orders for appointment of a Court Receiver and an injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the suit properties in breach of the agreements of which specific performance is sought.

(3.) It would be convenient to note the facts which according to the Plaintiff preceded the said agreements. Exhibit "a" to the plaint is divided into two parts - Part-I and Part-II. Each part describes the suit properties.