VASANTI BHATversusPREMLATA AGARWAL & ANR. ETC.

                       [2012) 10 S.C.R. 1148


A                         VASANTI BHAT
                                  v.
               PREMLATA AGARWAL & ANR. ETC.
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 8202-8205 of 2012)
                       NOVEMBER 22, 2012
B
          [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

        Interim Orders:

c      Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against
  developer - Single Judge of High Court directing not to
  register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which
  was not subject matter of the suit - Notion of Motion by
  appellant - Interim order recalled - Appeals - Division Bench
  of High Court staying operation of order of Single Judge and
0
  directing the money deposited by plaintiff and appellant with
  developer to the credit of one of the suits and to be invested
  in FD - Held: Division Bench of High Court while deciding
  the Notice of Motion has exceeded its power and jurisdiction
E in commenting on the conduct of the appellant stating that she
  approached the court on the basis of false and fabricated
  documents - When the main suits are pending, particularly,
  the appellant is a stranger in the pending suits, such
  observation is not warranted and, as such, is deleted - The
  developer having deposited the money as directed by High
F Court, it safeguards the interests of plaintiff - Trial Court
  directed to decide the suits on merit - Administration of justice
  - Strictures.

       The plaintiff-respondent no. 1, on 27 .1.2009, filed four
G suits against defendant-respondent no. 2 developer, for
  specific performance of agreement of sale with regard to
  four flats. The single Judge of the High Court by order
  dated 10.2.2009 appointed a Court Receiver in respect of
  flat No. 703, which was not shown as suit property in any
H                               1148
 VASANTI BHAT v. PREMLATA A AGARWAL & ANR.1149
                    ETC.
of the suits, and flat no. 801, and directed respondent no.    A
2 not to execute or register agreement or create third party
rights in respect of the said two flats, and by order dated
20.3.2009 directed the Court Receiver to seal the suit flats
and communicate the same to the appellant. The
appellant filed Notice of Motion in one of the four suits      B
before the High Court praying for setting aside the orders
dated 10.2.2009 and 20.3.2009. It was the case of the
appellant that out of a total sale consideration of Rs.39
lacs for flat no. 703, she had paid Rs. 38 lacs to
respondent no. 2 developer pursuant to a sale agreement        C
and had been issued a possession letter on 30.9.3008.
The single Judge by order dated 18.3.2010 set aside the
orders dated 10.2.2009 and 20.3.2009 and directed the
Court Receiver to return the possession of flat no. 703
to the appellant. Plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed appeals.
During the pendency of the appeals, as directed by the         0
High Court, respondent no. 2 deposited Rs.98 lacs which
had been paid by the appellant and respondent no. 1. The
Division Bench ultimately allowed the appeals and set
aside the order dated 18.3.2010 and directed transfer of
the amount deposited by respondent no. 2, to the credit        E
of Suit no. 251 of 2009 and to be kept invested in an FD.

    Disposing of the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. It is significant to note that the main suits F
are pending and any decision in respect of the issues
raised by the parties would undoubtedly affect the
ultimate stand of the parties and will have bearing on the
suits. The Division Bench of the High Court while
deciding the Notice of Motion has exceeded its power
and jurisdiction in commenting on the conduct of the G
appellant stating that she approached the court on the
basis of false and fabricated documents. When the main
suits are pending, particularly, the appellant is a stranger
in the pending suits, such observation is not warranted
and is, therefore, deleted. [para 6] [1155-C-F]               H
    1150   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             . [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A       1.2. Pursuant to the orders of the High Court, the
    developer has deposited a sum of Rs. 98 lakhs which
    safeguards the interest of respondent No.1. It is,
    therefore, directed:

        (i) The trial court before which the suits have been
B
        transferred from the original side of the High Court
        shall dispose of the suits within a period of one year.

        (ii) The deposited amount of Rs.98 lakhs invested in
        a Nationalized Bank be renewed periodically and
c       disbursed subject to the orders of the court
        concerned.

        (iii) The trial court shall decide the issue on merits on
        the basis of the materials to be placed before it.
D       (iv) The trial court shall adhere to the time schedule
        and dispose of all the suits, after affording
        opportunity to all the parties including the appellant.

        (v) The limited protection granted by this Court on
E       20.04.2012 directing all the parties to maintain status
        quo prevailing as on that date shall be continued till
        final decision in the suits. (para 7-8) (1155-F-H; 1156-
        A-E]

F        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    8202-8205 of 2012.

       From the Judgment & Order dated 29.9.2011 of the High
  Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 202 of 2010 in
  Notice of Motion No. 3112 of 2009 in Suit No. 252 of 2009 and
G Appeal No. 204 of 201 O in Notice of Motion No. 3114 of 2009
  in Suit No. 253 of 2009 and Appeal No. 205 of 2010 in Notice
  of Motion No. 3115 of 2009 in Suit No. 254 of 2009 and Appeal
  No. 203 in Notice of Motion No. 3113 of 2009 in Suit No. 251
  of 2009.
H
                                     ~




 VASANTI BHAT v. PREMLATA A AGARWAL & ANR.1151
                    ETC.

    Ravi Shankar Prasad, Praveen Samdhani, S.K. Katriar,        A
Abhay P. Sahay, Niraj Kumar, Suchita Pokharna, Himanshu
Shekhar, Anirudha Joshi, Viraj Maniar, Pramod B. Agarwala,
Prashant Mehra, Ajay Amritraj, Ashish Prakash, Prabhat
Kumar, Md. Shahid Anwar for the Appearing parties.
                                                                B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

    2. These appeals are directed against the final judgments
and orders dated 29.09.2011 passed by the High Court of         c
Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 202 of 2010 in Notice of
Motion No. 3112 of 2009 in Suit No. 252 of 2009, Appeal No.
204 of 2010 in Notice of Motion No. 3114 of 2009 in Suit No.
253 of 2009, Appeal No. 205 of 2010 in Notice of Motion No.
3115 of 2009 in Suit No. 254 of 2009 and Appeal No. 203 of      D
2010 in Notice of Motion No. 3113 of 2009 in Suit No. 251 of
2009 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals filed by
respondent No.1 and set aside the order dated 18.03.2010
passed in Notices of Motions.

    3. Brief facts:                                             E

    (a) An Agreement for Sale dated 06.10.2006 was entered
    into between Vasanti Bhat-appellant herein and M/s Zenal
    Construction Private Limited-respondent No.2 herein (the
    Developers) wherein the appellant agreed to purchase Flat   F
    No. 703 on the 7th Floor in 'A' Wing of the Reserve Bank
    of India Employees Kamdhenu Co-operative Housing
    Society Limited (in short 'the Society') for a total
    consideration of Rs. 39 lacs as the Developers was having
    absolute right to develop and sell the flats on the said    G
    property pursuant to an agreement between the
    Developers and the Society. Out of the total sale
    consideration, a sum of Rs. 38 lacs has already been paid
    through account payee cheques on different dates.
    Pursuant to the above Agreement for Sale, respondent        H
    1152   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A      No.2 issued a possession letter to the appellant on
       30.09.2008.

       (b) In the meantime, on 27.01.2009, Respondent No.1-
       Premlata A Agaiwal and her son Ravi A. Agaiwal filed four
       suits being Suit Nos. 251, 252, 253 and 254 of 2009 in
B
       the Bombay High Court against respondent No.2 for
       specific performance of Agreement for Sale with regard
       to four flats, namely, 801 and 802 in 'A' Wing and 801 and
       802 in 'B' Wing in the said Society. In none of the suits,
       Flat No. 703 in 'A' Wing was shown as the suit property.
c      When the matter came up for hearing, respondent No.2-
       herein (Defendant) informed the Court that they have sold
       out all the said flats. But on being asked, they informed the
       Court that two flats in 'A' Wing - one on the 8th Floor and
       the other on the 7th Floor are yet not agreed to be sold to
D      third parties under registered deed.

       (c) Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide ad-interim
       order dated 10.02.2009, appointed a Court Receiver in           •
       respect of Flat Nos. 703 and 801 in 'A' Wing and directed
E      respondent No.2 not to execute or register agreement,
       alienate or create any third party rights in respect of the
       aforesaid two flats.

       (d) Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order
       dated 20.03.2009, after coming to know from the counsel
F      for respondent No.1 that respondent No.2 allowed the
       purchasers, namely, Vasanti Bhat and Bhavik K. Shah to
       do furnishing in the suit flats and the construction work is
       yet to be completed, directed the Court Receiver to seal
       the suit flats and communicate the same to Vasanti Bhat
G      and Bhavik K. Shah.

       (e) Being aggrieved, on 07.08.2009, Vasanti Bhat filed
       Notice of Motion No. 3112 of 2009 in Suit No. 252 of
       2009 before the High Court, inter alia, praying for setting
H      aside the orders dated 10.02.2009 and 20.03.2009.
VASANTI BHAT v. PREMLATA A AGARWAL & ANR.1153
          ETC. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

  (f) Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order           A
  dated 18.03.2010 set aside the two orders dated
  10.02.2009 and 20.03.2009 and directed the Court
  Receiver to return the possession of Flat No. 703 in 'A'
  Wing to the applicant-therein i.e. Vasanti Bhat. Similar
  such orders were passed on the other Notice of Motions.          B

  (g) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order
  dated 18.03.2010 passed by the single Judge of the High
  Court, respondent No.1 filed four appeals before the
  Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
                                                                   c
  {h) The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated
  22.04.2010, while admitting the appeals directed
  respondent No.2 to deposit Rs. 98 lacs which is paid by
  respondent No.1 and the appellant and stayed the
  impugned orders in the said appeals until further orders.        D
  (i) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2010, the appellant
  and respondent No.2 preferred separate special leave
  petitions before this Court. This Court, by order dated
  23.07.2010 disposed of the aforesaid petitions and asked         E
  the parties to raise. all objections before the High Court
  with a request to consider and dispose of the same at an
  early date. During the pendency of the appeals before the
  High Court, respondent No.2 deposited the entire sum of
  Rs. 98 lacs which had been paid by the appellant and             F
  respondent No.1 as directed by the High Court.

   0) The High Court, by impugned orders dated 29.09.2011,
   allowed the appeals filed by the respondents and set aside
 . the order dated 18.03.2010 passed 1n Notice of Motions
   in the respective suits. The High Court further directed that   G
   the amount which was deposited by respondent No.2 shall
   be transferred to the credit of Suit No. 251 of 2009 and
   the amount should be kept invested in a FD in a
   Nationalized Bank.
                                                                   H
    1154     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A        (k) Against the order passed by the Division Bench of the
         High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of
         special leave before this Court.

         4. Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned senior counsel
B   for the appellant, Mr. Praveen Samdhani, learned senior
    counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. S.K. Katriar, learned
    senior counsel for respondent No.2.

          5. All the three senior counsel appearing for the contesting
    parties took us through the Agreement for Sale, averments in
C   the plaint, reliefs sought for in Notice of Motions and the order
    of the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of
    the High Court. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned senior
    counsel by drawing our attention to the Agreement for Sale
    relating to Flat No. 703 in 'A' wing supported the conclusion
D   arrived at by the learned single Judge and argued that the
    Division Bench committed an error in allowing the appeal of
    the plaintiff by rejecting the Notice of Motion filed by the
    appellant herein. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Samdhani,
    learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, by drawing our
E   attention to the fact that the appellant herein is a stranger in the
    suits, submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the Division
    Bench cannot be faulted with and according to him the only
    remedy open to the appellant is to file a separate suit to secure
    relief in her favour. Mr. S.K. Katriar, learned senior counsel for
F   respondent No.2 - the Developers submitted that there cannot
    be any injunction against third party and the appellant herein
    being not a party to the suits, no injunction can be granted
    against her. He further submitted that by depositing a sum of
    Rs.98 lakhs, the interest of respondent No.1 is fully protected,
G   hence, the impugned order of the Division Bench is hot
    warranted and the same is liable to be interfered with.

       6. All the learned senior counsel fairly admitted that as per
  Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 it is only
  discretionary relief depending upon various factual aspects to
H be established by the party(s) approaching the Court. All the
 VASANTI BHAT v. PREMLATA A AGARWAL & ANR. 1155
           ETC. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

counsel have also relied on Section 14 of the Specific Relief         A
Act, 1963 as well as various provisions of Maharashtra
Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of
Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer} Act, 1963. It is
also not in dispute that the main suits are still pending and it
was also brought to our notice that because of the enhancement        B
of jurisdiction, in October, 2012, the suits filed by the plaintiff
in the original side of the High Court, with which we are
concerned, are being transferred to the City Civil Court,
Bombay. Taking note of the fact that the main suits are pending
and any decision in respect of the issues raised by all the           c
parties would undoubtedly affect the ultimate stand of the
parties and will have bearing on the suits, we have decided not
to analyse and arrive at a definite conclusion one way or the
other. At the same time, Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned
senior counsel for the appellant is fully justified in contending
                                                                      0
that the Division Bench while deciding the Nc.tice of Motion has
exceeded its power and jurisdiction in commenting the conduct
of the appellant herein (respondent No.2 therein} stating that
she approached the Court on the basis of false and fabricated
documents. When the main suits are pending, particularly, the         E
appellant before us is a stranger in the pending suits, we are
of the view that such observation that respondent No.2 therein
(appellant herein} had approached the Court on the basis of
false and fabricated documents is not warranted and those
observations have to be eschewed and we rightly do so.
                                                                      F
     7. As stated earlier, we also noted the fact that pursuant
to the orders of the Court, the Developers (respondent No.2
herein) has deposited a sum of Rs. 98 lakhs which safeguards
the interest of respondent No.1 herein (plaintiff in the suits}.
                                                                      G
     8. We intend to dispose of these appeals by issuing the
following directions:
    (i} The Court concerned, viz., City Civil Court (we were not
    informed about the exact Court before which the suits have
    been transferred from the original side of the High Court}        H
    1156       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A          is directed to dispose of the suits within a period of one
           year from the date of the receipt of copy of this judgment.

           (ii) The deposited amount of Rs.98 lakhs invested in a
           Nationalized Bank be renewed periodically and disbursed
           subject to the orders of the court concerned.
B
           (iii) All the observations/directions, particularly, the
           expression of the Diyision Bench about the alleged
           conduct of respondent No.2 therein (appellant herein) that
           she had approached the Court on the basis of false and
c          fabricated documents, is deleted and the trial Court is
           directed to decide the issue on merits on the basis of the
           materials to be placed before it.

           (iv) The Court concerned is directed to adhere to the time ·
D          schedule and dispose of all the suits, after affording
           opportunity to all the parties including the appellant herein,
           uninfluenced by any of the reasoning of the High Court and
           this Court.

           (v) The limited protection granted by this Court on
E          20.04.2012 directing all the parties to maintain status quo
           prevailing as on that date shall be continued till final
           decision being taken in the suits as directed above.

        9. All the appeals are disposed of on the above terms.
F   There shall be no order as to costs.

    R.P.                                       Appeals disposed of.