JUDGMENT - MOHTA ANOOP V., J.:-This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs (on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court) in a re-numbered Suit No. 2939 of 1999 originally numbered as Suit No. 655 of 1968 in the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, for an order and injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 or any of them or their officers claiming any right, title, possession or use or occupation, transferring, alienating, assigning, creating third party rights and/or otherwise dealing with, or carrying out any construction work or activity or from making use of any FSI under the alleged permission and Certificates and letter No. EB/5817/Aa dated 8th March, 2004 read with letter No. EE/BPC/5817/AA dated 9th March, 2004, purported revalidation of the IOD dated 16th June, 1966, and Commencement Certificate dated 20th June, 1966, in respect of "Divya Prabha" i.e. the property in question.

2. These IOD and Commencement Certificate issued in the year 1966 which had lapsed for 30 years, was revalidated for the first time on 20th June, 1996. This Certificate was also challenged and by order dated 10th March, 1977, injunction was granted restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 from carrying out any construction work. The Court, on 12th November, 1996, had passed a restrainment order against the same defendants.

3. The City Civil Court had also by order dated 11th March, 1999, had granted injunction against the same defendants from carrying out any construction. Now, defendant No. 7 once again, by letter dated 8th/9th March, 2004, revalidated the IOD and Commencement Certificate issued in the year 1966.

VARIOUS ORDERS AND INCOMPLETE CONSTRUCTION :

4. Strikingly, defendants could not complete the construction for one reason or another, till this date, even though basic permissions and/or sanction to commence the construction had been issued in favour of the concerned defendants in the year 1966. This position is not in dispute. In the result, defendants unable to complete the construction work of "Divya Prabha" till this date and it is admittedly stopped.

5. The defendant-Corporation i.e. defendant No. 7 has, by letters dated 8th/9th March, 2004, revalidated the said IOD and Commencement Certificate of the year 1966. Those letters have compelled the plaintiffs to move for ad interim relief by way of Notice of Motion No. 1596 of 1999, dated 15th March, 2004. The plaintiffs withdraw the said Notice of Motion on 19th March, 2004, with liberty, to amend the plaint, by bringing those revalidation letters of 8th/9th March, 2004 on record.

6. A Chamber Summons No. 478 of 2004 for amendment of the plaint was taken out by the plaintiffs on 24th March, 2004, with prayer for ad interim reliefs. Ad interim reliefs were refused by a reasoned order and basically for the reason that the amendments, as prayed, in the Chamber Summons for amendment was not decided on merits.

7. Plaintiffs, therefore, preferred an Appeal No. 235 of 2004 against the aforesaid order of refusal of the ad interim relief dated 24th March, 2004 and, after hearing both the parties, the Honble Division Bench on 29th March, 2004, restrained defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 from commencing construction until further orders in the appeal. Para 2 of the said order reads as under :

"2. There will be ad interim order in terms of Prayer (a) excluding the last clause thereof, namely "from entering the said building or land any part thereof for any purpose", until further orders on the appeal."

8. By the order dated 31st March, 2004, with the consent of the parties, the Chamber Summons No. 478 of 2004 was allowed. On 5th April, 2004, the Honble Division Bench, while disposing of Appeal No. 235 of 2004, has admittedly continued the abovementioned injunction order, until 26th April, 2004.

9. The plaintiffs have carried out the amendments and taken out the present Notice of Motion on 19th April, 2004, after the expiry of 30 days, from the date of notice under section 527 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document