JUDGMENT :

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

1. The present Appeal impugns an Order dated 12th April 2023 by which the Learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss Notice of Motion No. 1361 of 2013 (“the said Notice of Motion”) and Interim Application No. 293 of 2022 (“the said Interim Application”) taken out by the Appellants - Plaintiffs in Suit No.672 of 2013.

2. The Learned Single Judge has in the Impugned Order set out both the broad facts of the case as also the circumstances in which the said Notice of Motion and Interim Application came to be filed. We therefore do not propose to reiterate the same except to the extent relevant for the purposes of deciding this Appeal.

3. The Appellants claim to be an Association of Persons (“AOP”) engaged in the business of acquiring and developing properties and carry on business in the name Sheetal Realtors. Respondent No.1 (“the Respondent”) claims to be the owner of a piece and parcel of land being Plot No. 4, admeasuring about 2477 square meters, situate, lying and being at CTS No.128, 128/1 to 8 Revenue Village and City Survey Ghatkopar, Taluka and Registration Sub-District: Kurla (“the said land”) more particularly described in the plaint. It is not in dispute that the said land had various cattle-sheds which were tenanted structures.

4. On 15th December 2005 the Appellant No. 1and the Respondent executed a document titled “Terms Agreed” (“the said MOU”). The execution of this MOU is not disputed, however both Parties are at variance as to the agreement that was arrived at as recorded in the said MOU. It is the Appellants contention that by the said MOU the Appellants were entitled to certain built up area of the development which was to be carried out in the said land. Conversely, it is the Respondents contention that the said MOU contemplated only sale of the said land. It is however not in dispute that the MOU contemplated reciprocal obligations on both Parties thereto.

5. The Respondent by its Advocate’s letter dated 17th January 2012 terminated the said MOU and called upon the Appellants to either purchase the said land at its market value or then accept a refund of the amount paid by the Appellants to the Respondent. The termination notice issued by the Respondent was contested by the Appellants vide their Advocate’s letter dated 31st January 2012.It was thus the Appellants filed the captioned Suit seeking inter alia specific performance of the said MOU. The Appellants also took out the said Notice of Motion in which the Appellants sought the following reliefs; indicating an injunction against Respondent No.1 from in any manner encumbering, alienating, dealing with, disposing off and/or creating any third party right title and interest in respect of the said land.

On 31st October 2012 when the said Notice of Motion was heard for Ad-interim relief, this Court passed the following order:-

“P.C. :-

1. The Plaintiffs have filed the above suit seeking specific performance of the MOU dated 15th December 2005 (Exhibit B to the plaint) and the purported supplemental Agreement annexed as Exhibit M to the plaint. The learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant has pointed out that the Agreement has been terminated by their Advocate's letter dated 17th January 2012. According to the Plaintiffs themselves, the plinth which was put up by the Plaintiffs on the suit plot was destroyed/demolished by the Defendant in June 2005. The suit is filed on 23rd October 2012 and an application is now made for urgent ad-interim reliefs. The learned Advocate appearing for the Defendants has also pointed out that the Development Agreement is already entered into by the Defendant with M/s. EDMD Infracon Pvt. Ltd. on 27th September 2012. The said M/s. EDMD Infracon Pvt. Ltd. will have to be brought on record. In view of the aforestated facts, no ad-interim relief can be granted. However, the Plaintiffs shall be at liberty to move for reliefs, if any, after seeking/carrying out amendments to the plaint. All applications t