Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

These Appeals arise from a judgment dated 19 July 2010 of a Learned Single Judge on a Motion for interim relief in a suit. When an application for ad interim relief came up for hearing before the Learned Single Judge, an objection to the maintainability of the suit was raised on behalf of the First Defendant on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. The Learned Single Judge was requested to raise a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Learned Judge accepted the contention that an issue under Section 9A would have to be raised. The Court held that no case for the grant of ad interim relief, within the meaning of Section 9A(2) was made out on the ground of delay. However, the Learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the Motion for interim relief on the ground that since affidavits have been filed and parties were heard at length, it would not be appropriate or proper to have a hearing confined only to the disposal of the application for ad interim relief. Two appeals have been filed in these proceedings. The first appeal is by Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia, the Plaintiff; while the second appeal is by Ferani Hotels Private Limited, the First Defendant. The suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of Late E.F. Dinshaw. For convenience of reference and since there are two appeals, it would be appropriate to refer to the parties as the administrator and Ferani. Reference to the other Defendants would be made appropriately, as and when necessary. \

2. The suit has been instituted, inter alia, to seek a declaration that an agreement entered into between the administrator and Ferani on 2 January 1995 stands vitiated by fraud and has been duly determined with effect from 12 May 2008. Consequential reliefs have also been claimed to the effect that the powers of attorney executed by the Plaintiff stand validly revoked and that certain agreements entered into between Ferani and the other Defendants, including among them agreements which date back to 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, have been validly revoked. An injunction has been sought, restraining Ferani from carrying out any further construction on the lands which form the subject matter of the suit and to demolish the constructions which have been put up. There is a claim for damages in the amount of Rs.1,370.06 Crores. The lands which form the subject matter of the dispute aggregate to about 350 acres and are situated principally in Malad.

3. On 2 January 1995 an agreement was entered into between the administrator (representing the estate of E.F. Dinshaw) and Ferani, under which Ferani undertook the development of the land and the sale of constructed areas thereon subject to certain terms and conditions. The agreement envisaged that Ferani would develop the land by constructing buildings thereon. The administrator was to grant, in favour of Ferani, a lease in respect of the land. Clause 8 of the agreement stipulated thus:

“8. The Development Project contemplated by this Agreement, is the following:-

(a) Sale, or transfer by any other format, by the Company to third parties (hereinafter referred to as “the Purchasers” or prospective purchasers or Unit holders / flat holders, as the case maybe) either on outright sale basis or on “ownership basis”, or otherwise, the different building/s to be so put up by the Company on the respective segments (being building/s belonging to the Company) and/or of the flats/ shops/offices and/or other portions of and/or Units in such buildings/s, so that ultimately the building/s that would be so constructed by the Company would be conveyed and transferred by the Company in favour of the respective purchaser/s or a Co-operative Society or Limited Company or a Condominium (as may be decided upon by the Company) to be formed of such prospective purchasers or Unit holders/ Flat holders/co-operative society or limited