IMPORTANT POINT
Under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Plaintiff can abandon the suit or part of the claim against selected Defendants, and the Court can accept a compromise if it is lawful. The Court can decree the suit in accordance with such agreement or compromise if it is found to be lawful.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Suit was listed for settlement on account of submission made on Plaintiffs’ behalf that the disputes are amicably resolved. Accordingly, Consent Terms are tendered jointly by the learned counsel appearing for Plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the Defendant Nos. 8 to 11. However, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have opposed compromise of the Suit by Plaintiffs with Defendant Nos.8 to 11 on the grounds, both of impermissibility to settle the Suit behind their back and also on the ground of terms of compromise affecting their rights in respect of land on which Defendant Nos.8 to 11 are proposing to carry out construction. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 are also opposed to acceptance of Consent Terms by this Court on the same grounds as that of Defendant Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, this detailed order is necessitated with a view to examine the objections raised by the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 as well as by Defendant Nos.4 to 6 to compromise of suit between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.8 to 11.

2. Thirty-five Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit seeking a declaration that they are the purchasers of Units described in Exhibit-C1 to Exhibit-C7 in the proposed commercial complex building named ‘Sharada Complex’ to be constructed on plot of land bearing Survey No.41-part (1)(B) bearing CTS No.444, 444/1, 444/2 and 445 at Swami Vivekanand Road, village Oshiwara, Jogeshwari, Mumbai 400 102 (suit plot). Plaintiffs seek direction against Defendant Nos.1 to 11 to jointly and severally comply with the statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of the Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) by executing various documents and performing various acts more particularly described in prayer clause (b) of the Plaint. Various other consequential reliefs are sought by the Plaintiffs in the Suit.

3. Defendant No.1 is a Construction Company who acquired the suit plot under the Deed of Conveyance dated 17 July 1993. The Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) acquired the suit plot on 2 December 1994 towards planning proposals for Oshiwara District Centre. Defendant No.1 applied to MMRDA for taking the suit plot on lease for carrying out development thereon. It is Plaintiffs’ case that in anticipation of securing lease of the plot from MMRDA, Defendant No.1 as well as Defendant Nos.2 and 3 (who are the Directors/Representatives of Defendant No.1) distributed pamphlets amongst public for purchase of Units in the commercial building to be constructed on the suit plot. Plaintiffs accordingly booked various Commercial Units in the proposed building named ‘Sharada Complex’, Wings A to G by paying various considerations as more particularly detailed in Exhibit-B1 to Exhibit-B7 to the Plaint. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant No.1 issued allotment letters in their favour in respect of various commercial units in consideration of having received various amounts from Plaintiffs. That the total area of units allotted to the Plaintiffs is 46,715 square feet. It is Plaintiffs’ case that out of the amounts paid by them to Defendant Nos.1 to 3, they paid premium amount of Rs.1,20,54,000/- to MMRDA towards lease premium and MMRDA executed a lease agreement dated 21 April 1995 with Defendant No.1 granting permission for development of the suit plot.

4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 entered into development agreements dated 9 September 1996 and 14 August 1996 with Defendant No.4-M/s. Shri Sai Developers. Defendant Nos.5 to 7 are the partners of M/s. Shri Sai Developers. It appears that Defendant No.4 to 7 were attempting to enter into some arrangement with Defendant Nos.8 to 11 (M/s. Royal Developers). Plaintiffs claim that sometime in the year 1999/2000 Defendant Nos.1 to 3 terminated the development agreement and power of attorneys executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 to 7. Thereafter Defendant Nos.1 to 3 directly entered into joint venture agreement dated 10 May 2001 with Defendant