RAMESH VAJABHAI RABARI Vs. BERTRAM PETER D MELLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The suit is for specific performance of an agreement dated 30th December 2005 and a supplemental agreement also dated 30th December 2005. The property in question is at Andheri and measures approximately 11,773 sq mtrs. There is also a structure on the property. For the purposes of this Chamber Summons filed by the Plaintifs for amendment, I do not believe further details are necessary.

(3.) After the Plaintif filed this suit, it filed Notice of Motion No. 163 of 2007 seeking interim relief. That application found favour with the learned Single Judge who, by an order dated 29th June 2012, granted the Plaintif interim relief. There were three appeals filed by various Defendants as originally arrayed. The appeals were finally disposed of at the admission stage by consent on 18th June 2013. The observations of the Appeal Court are material and, indeed, they are central to the opposition by Mr Shah for Defendants Nos. 3 and 9 in response to the amendment application pressed by Mr Jethmalani. One of the questions before the learned single Judge and, therefore, before the Appeal Court, was whether the Plaintifs were truly unaware of and had no notice of certain previous transactions regarding the suit property, particularly with or involving one VB Patel & Co, a partnership firm. The Division Bench found inter alia that the Plaintif did in fact know of these dealings but had suppressed them in the plaint. I believe it is best at this stage to set out paragraphs 19 to 21 of the appellate order so that there is no controversy.