(1.) Heard arid gone through the record.
(2.) A suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the Defendants from causing any interference in its possession over 4 flats bearing numbers 1, 8, 9 and 5 out of 12 flats, which it has constructed on a piece of land owned and possessed by the Defendants, pursuant to an agreement of collaboration. As per the terms of the agreement, 12 flats were to be constructed by the Plaintiff on the land of the Defendants and out of those 12 flats, 9 were to be retained by the Plaintiff and three were to be given to the Defendants. The money for the construction of all the 12 flats was to be spent by the Plaintiff. The flats were to be constructed within a stipulated period, but according to the Plaintiff those flats could not be constructed within such period as the Defendants did not execute the power of attorney in its favour authorizing it to go ahead with the construction of the flats and also to get the some clearances from the concerned authorities. The Plaintiff, besides seeking the aforesaid relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 17,14,446/-.
(3.) An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the Plaintiff seeking grant of temporary injunction, restraining the Defendants from causing any interference in its possession over the aforesaid flats, during the pendency of the suit. Initially an order of maintenance of status-quo was passed by this Court on 3rd September, 2004, by way of ad-interim ex parte relief. Finally the application was disposed of vide order dated 18th March, 2005. It was observed that Flats No. 1, 8 and 9 having been allotted to the Defendants as per agreement of collaboration, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any temporary injunction in respect thereof and consequently, the order of ad-interim ex parte relief requiring the parties to maintain status-quo was vacated, as regards the aforesaid three flats.