Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NOs.     8202-8205     OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6388-6391 of 2012)

Vasanti Bhat                        .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Premlata A Agarwal & Anr. Etc.              .... Respondent(s)

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T      

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  

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  

1

Page 2

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:

(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 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 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 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 Agarwal and her son Ravi A. Agarwal filed four  

2

Page 3

suits being Suit Nos. 251, 252, 253 and 254 of 2009 in 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.  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 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 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 for  

respondent No.1 that respondent No.2 allowed the  

purchasers, namely, Vasanti Bhat and Bhavik K. Shah to do  

3

Page 4

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 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 aside the  

orders dated 10.02.2009 and 20.03.2009.   

(f) Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order 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.

(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.

4

Page 5

(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.   

(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 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 respondent No.1 as directed by the  

High Court.  

(j) 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 in Notice of Motions in the  

respective suits. The High Court further directed that the  

amount which was deposited by respondent No.2 shall be  

transferred to the credit of Suit No. 251 of 2009 and the  

5

Page 6

amount should be kept invested in a FD in a Nationalized  

Bank.   

(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  

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  

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  

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,  

6

Page 7

learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, by drawing our  

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 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, hence, the impugned order of the  

Division Bench is not 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  

be established by the party(s) approaching the Court.  All the  

counsel have also relied on Section 14 of the Specific Relief  

Act, 1963 as well as various provisions of Maharashtra  

Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of  

7

Page 8

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 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 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 that the Division Bench while deciding the Notice  

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 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  

8

Page 9

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.   

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).  

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) 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.

(iii) All the observations/directions, particularly, the  

expression of the Division Bench about the alleged conduct of  

respondent No.2 therein (appellant herein) that she had  

9

Page 10

approached the Court on the basis of false and 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  

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  

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.  

There shall be no order as to costs.

...…………….…………………………J.            (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…....…………………………………J.    (RANJAN GOGOI)  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 22, 2012.  

10

Page 11

11

Page 12