2023:BHC-OS:11877 Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SATISH SANGAR RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 33-NMS-1589-2015 & Anr.doc

2023.10.11

14: 09:58 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 997 OF 2015 IN SUIT NO. 529 OF 2015 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1589 OF 2015 IN SUIT NO. 529 OF 2015 Satish (Vicky) K. Ostwal ...Applicant In the matter between Satish (Vicky) K. Ostwal ...Plaintiff vs.

Narendra Vishwanath Patil ...Defendant *****

Ms.Kausar Banatwala – Counsel a/w Ms.Paluck Bengali i/b. Mr.Tushar Goradia – Advocates for Plaintiff-Applicant in Notice of Motion No. 997 of 2015.

Ms.Yogita Deshmukh–Chitnis – Advocate for Original Defendant – Applicant in Notice of Motion No.1589 of 2015.

*****

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 3^rd OCTOBER 2023 P. C. :-

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1589 OF 2015

1. This Court as per the order dated 27^th November, 2015 after hearing the respective Counsels for both the parties was pleased to frame a preliminary issue under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”]. It reads thus :-

“Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Suit”?

This issue is framed on the basis of Notice of Motion filed by the sole Defendant. The pleadings are over.

2. Today, when the Notice of Motion is placed before me, both the learned Counsels submitted that they do not want to adduce oral evidence. In view of that, I have heard learned Advocate for the Defendant-Applicant and learned Advocate for the Respondent-Plaintiff.

3. There is relationship of purchaser and vendor in between the Plaintiff and Defendant. As per the Memorandum of Understanding [“MoU”] dated 24^th August, 2012, admittedly executed in Mumbai, the Defendant has agreed to sell an agricultural land situated at Village:Shirgaon, Taluka:Palghar, District:Thane. The consideration was Rs.1,62,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Two Lakhs Only). It was to be paid in three installments. They are as follows :-

(a) Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Elevan Lakhs Only) to be paid at the time of execution of MoU which is paid.

There is no dispute.

(b) Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs) to be paid on sale-deed registration and power of attorney.

(c) Balance consideration of Rs.1,12,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs Only) to be paid at the time of execution of Conveyance Deed.

The relevant clause is Clause No.2 of MoU. The period for paying second installment is 30 days from the MoU. Whereas, the period is 120 days from MoU for paying the last installment. There was a notice issued by the Defendant through his Advocate dated 15^th December, 2014 thereby terminating the the MoU. Accordingly, the present Suit came to be filed.

4. The main reliefs are as follows :-

(a) To declare that purported termination of MoU vide letter dated 15^th December, 2014 is illegal, contrary to MoU and it is not affect any of the rights of the Plaintiff as per MoU ;

(b) Direct Defendant to specifically perform his obligations under the MoU ;

(c) There is alternate prayer for awarding damages of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) ;

5. After appearance, the Defendant has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He has not filed written statement. On one hand, the Plaintiff contends that :- entire cause of action has occurred within the territorial limits of this Court and hence, this Court is having jurisdiction.

6. Whereas, Defendant contends that in fact :-

(a) I t is not cause of action which is material but it is the averments in the Plaint and prayer sought are relevant.

(b) In addition to that contention, Defendant also relied upon compilation of documents to show that there exists dispute about title with the Plaintiff, so also, amongst other parties who are not before this Court.

(c) There is also contention raised that there is also a dispute about possession.

That is why, there is a submission that if the contentions raised in Motion and accompanying documents, the Suit will be “Suit for Land” and as land is sit