Oral Judgment:

1. The Plaintiff has sought amendment of the plaint in the Chamber Summons. The Plaintiff has also sought appointment of Court Receiver and an order of injunction restraining the Defendant as well as the Respondents from creating 3rd party rights in respect of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) on the suit property, utilizing and loading the TDR on any property and acting pursuant to the agreements entered into by and between the Defendants and the Respondent s in respect of TDR and for an order against the Defendant to deposit monies received under the transaction relating to the TDR by him.

2. The Plaintiff is the partner of Defendant No.1 under registered Deed of Partnership dated 15th November 1993. During the pendency of the partner ship a suit came to be filed by the Partnership Firm against Respondent No.2 being Suit No.6736 / 1 99 9. On 18th August 2000 the minutes of the decree on admission came to be passed in the suit upon consent of the parties and signed by the parties. Under those Consent Terms the total claim of Rs.52.52 lakhs came to be admitted by Respondent No.2. A decree on admission came to be passed in terms of prayer (a) of that suit. That decretal amount was to be paid partly in cash and party under an agreement to sell the TDR, which was to be obtained in the name of Respondent No.2 by Respondent No.2 to the Plaintiff in that suit being the Partnership Firm of the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein. Under the minutes of the order Respondent No.2 declared that it had applied to the MMC for issuance of their Development Rights Certificate (DRC) which was agreed to be transferred to the Plaintiffs in that suit. The Respondent No.2 undertook not to sell or transfer or utilize the DRC/TDR until the decree on admission dated 14th September 2000 was fully satisfied. The Defendant signed the Consent Terms as partner of the Firm of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff had no knowledge of the said decree.

3. Part amount of the Consent Decree was paid and part satisfaction of the decree to the extent of Rs.25,91,750/- came to be recorded by the Prothonotory and Senior Master of this Court on 31 st December 2001.

4. On about 6th August 2003 the Respondent No.2 and the Partnership Firm of the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein entered into an MOU. The MOU is not happily worded. However, a reading of the MOU shows that Respondent No.2 as the party of the first part had got processed the file with regard to the TDR which was to be transferred to the Partnership Firm cleared from the legal department of the MMC. It was agreed that the Partnership Firm would process the file at its own cost and be entitled to use the TDR in the manner it liked on the plot of land for which it was issued or to sell or dispose it off on consideration. The parties agreed to get satisfaction of the decree recorded.

5. On 26th August 2003 the Prothonotory and Senior Master of this Court recorded that the decree was fully satisfied out of Court without execution.

6. TheDefendant No.2 signed the MOU as a partner of the Firm. The Plaintiff had no knowledge of the execution of the said MOU at that time.

7. It is the Plaintiff's case that on 16th May 2005 he learnt about the TDR issued in the name of Respondent No.2 by the MMC from a public notice issued in the Free Press Journal by the MMC. On 24th August 2005 the Plaintiff issued a notice upon the Defendant stating that he had come to know about the passing of the Consent Decree on 14th September 2000 and the agreement of Respondent No.2 and the Defendant with regard to the TDR through the public notice issued by the MMC. The Plaintiff stated that the Partnership Firm was entitled to the TDR and requested the Defendant not to deal with, dispose off, or create any 3rd party rights in the said TDR. The Plaintiff, however did not take any legal action thereafter. The Plaintiff did not obtain an order of injunction against the Defendant in respect of th