S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 is a partnership firm M/s. Atithi Builders. Defendant No. 3 is the Secretary, State of maharashtra, Urban Development Department. Defendant No. 4 is the additional Collector and Competent Authority under the u. L. C. Act. Defendant No. 5 is the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. Defendant No. 6, Vinod b. Mistry is an Advocate of this Court. Defendant No. 7 is one Nipun Ishwardas thakkar carrying on business in the firm name and style M/s. Ami Corporation Builders and Developers, as the sole proprietor thereof. Defendant No. 8 is the Municipal corporation of Greater Mumbai.

( 2 ) THE Plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of two agreements, dated 29. 3. 1982 and 7. 4. 1982. The Plaintiff has also sought a declaration that certain orders, directions and agreements between some of the Defendants inter se are null and void. For the purpose of this order, it is necessary to consider only the plaintiffs case for specific performance. Had the Plaintiff made out a case for specific performance, I may have considered protecting the Plaintiffs rights at least at this ad interim stage without going in detail into the other questions. (a) By this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has sought interim orders for appointment of a Court Receiver and an injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the suit properties in breach of the agreements of which specific performance is sought.

( 3 ) IT would be convenient to note the facts which according to the Plaintiff preceded the said agreements. Exhibit "a" to the plaint is divided into two parts - Part-I and Part-II. Each part describes the suit properties. (a ). By a registered lease deed dated 1. 8. 1972, one Anant Pandit, the owner of the properties, leased out the property de- scribed in Part-I of Exhibit "a" to M/s. Elite builders, a firm in which one Lala lakhpatrai Shadiram Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as Lala) and Defendant No. 1 held 75% and 25% shares respectively. By a deed dated 10. 6. 1980, Defendant No. 1 released his share in the firm after which Lala carried on business in the name and style of m/s. Elite Builders as the sole proprietor thereof. The Plaintiffs case is that thereupon the said Lala became the sole lessee in respect of the property described in Exhibit "a" Part-I. (b ). By another registered lease deed also dated 1. 8. 1972, the said Anant Pandit leased the property described in Part-II of exhibit "a" to the said Lala, Defendant No. 1, one P. Gupta and one S. S. Uppal. Lala claimed to be the constituted attorney of the heirs of the said Gupta. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the said Uppal had released his 1/4th share to the other three lessees. It appears inter-alia from Exhibit "m" to the plaint that in fact Uppal took his 1/4th share leaving the balance with the other three lessees. This fact however has a bearing only on the quantum of Lalas right in the property which he is alleged to have transferred to the Plaintiff.

( 4 ) THIS brings me to the two suit agreements in respect whereof specific performance is sought.

( 5 ) (A)BY the alleged agreement dated 29. 3. 1982 (Exhibit "b" to the plaint, which pertains to the property described in Part-I of Exhibit "a" to the plaint), Lala agreed to allow the Plaintiff to develop the property "more particularly described in the Second schedules hereunder written and shown on the plan hereto annexed by red colour boundary line. " (see the last recital ). There is admittedly neither a plan nor a second schedule to the agreement. Clauses 2 and 3 of the said agreement read as under :-"2. Subject to what is provided above, the Vendors shall allow the Developers and the developers shall develop the said property more particularly described in the Second schedule hereunder written and shown on the plan hereto annexed by red colour boundary line which forms part of the property described in the Schedule herein against efforts put in by the Developers in