IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NOS.4, 6, 7 & 8 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2573 OF 2008

Bharat Karsondas Thakkar   …   Appellant  Vs.

M/s Kiran Construction Co. & Others …   Respondents

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.________ OF 2009

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.28267-28268 of 2008 and  28270-28271 of 2008)

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil)  

Nos.28267-28268 of 2008 and 28270-28271 of 2008.  

All the Appeals were taken up together for disposal  

as they arise out of the same set of facts and  

common  questions  of  law  are  involved.   Five

interlocutory  applications,  being  I.A.Nos.4,5,6,7  

and 8, filed in connection with the Special Leave  

Petition, for clarification of the judgment dated  

9th April, 2008, passed in Civil Appeal No.2573 of  

2008 and for deletion of the names of some of the  

parties and for filing additional documents, were  

also taken up for disposal along with the Appeals.  

While SLP(C)Nos.28267-28268 of 2008 have been filed  

by the Official Receiver against the order dated  

17th November, 2006, passed by the Division Bench of  

the  Bombay  High  Court  in  Appeal  No.748/2001  

challenging the order dated 21st June, 2001, passed  

by the learned Single Judge and restoring Notice of  

Motion  No.140/99  for  fresh  hearing  before  the  

learned Single Judge and SLP(C)Nos.28270-28271 of  

2008 have been filed by the Vaitys against the same  

order  in  Appeal  No.747/2001  in  Notice  of  Motion  

No.2700/99,  claiming  the  self-same  reliefs.  As  

indicated hereinabove, three of the interlocutory  

applications  have  been  filed  in  Civil  Appeal  

2

No.2573/2008,  for  clarification  of  the  Judgment  

dated  9th April,  2008,  passed  in  Civil  Appeal  

No.2573/2008, disposing of Appeal No.741 of 2001.  

Applications  have  also  been  filed  by  the  

petitioners  in  both  the  set  of  Special  Leave  

Petitions (now appeals) for condonation of delay in  

filing the same on account of the fact that the  

subject matter of the said Special Leave Petitions  

was also the subject matter of SLP(C)No.2328/2007,  

which was subsequently renumbered as Civil Appeal  

No.2573/2008, but had remained undisposed of when  

the appeal against the order dated 16th November,  

2006, was finally disposed of by the judgment and  

order dated 9th April, 2008.  There being substance  

in explanation given for condonation of delay in  

filing the Special Leave Petition, such delay is  

condoned.  

2. On  27th May,  1949,  the  Collector  of  Thane  

recorded a grant in favour of Mr. Sowar Ramji Vaity  

3

entitling him to lease of lands relating to Survey  

Nos.83 to 91 in Village Mulund for a term of 999  

years. Mr. Sowar Ramji Vaity died in the year 1965,  

leaving  behind  him  surviving  Jagannath,  Babu,  

Vishnu and Bhaskar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  

Vaitys’) as his legal representatives to succeed to  

his  estate.   On  1st October,  1973,  the  Vaitys  

entered into an agreement to sell their rights and  

interests in the aforesaid lands to one Mr. K.L.  

Danani (the Respondent No.44 herein) for a total  

consideration of Rs.2 lakhs. Under the Agreement,  

Mr. Danani was required to obtain lease of the suit  

lands from the Collector in favour of the Vaitys  

within a period of two years.   During the months  

of April and June, 1974, Mr. Danani constituted a  

partnership firm with Mr. K.V. Thakkar and Mr. S.S.  

Thakkar  under  the  name  of  M/s  Swas  Construction  

Company.   The  Appellant  herein,  who  was  then  a  

minor,  was  admitted  to  the  benefits  of  the  

partnership firm.   The time for completion of the  

4

sale under the agreement dated 1st October, 1973,  

was extended by two months till after the land was  

converted  to  non-agricultural  use  or  the  Vaitys  

made a clear and marketable title to the suit land,  

whichever was later. It was recorded that M/s Swas  

Construction Company had been put in possession of  

the suit lands in part performance of the agreement  

dated 1.10.1973.    

3. In the meantime, the Urban Land (Ceiling and  

Regulation)  Act,  1976,  was  enacted  and  Mr.  K.L.  

Danani claiming possession under the said Agreement  

filed  a  statement  with  the  Urban  Land  Ceiling  

Authorities in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act.  

On 12th June, 1979, pursuant to a decision arrived  

at in April, 1978, the Government of Maharashtra  

executed a lease in favour of the Vaitys for a  

period of 60 years.  Immediately thereafter, on 18th  

June, 1979, the Vaitys entered into an Agreement  

with  M/s  Modern  Development  Corporation,  the  

5

Respondent No.24 herein, granting them development  

rights  in  respect  of  the  suit  lands.   On  24th  

August, 1979, M/s Modern Development Corporation is  

alleged to have entered into an agreement with the  

Respondent No.1, M/s Kiran Construction Company, to  

transfer  its  beneficial  interests  in  the  suit  

lands, except for Serial No.91, in favour of the  

Respondent  No.1.  Clause  12  of  the  Agreement  

specifically  required  M/s  Modern  Development  

Corporation to obtain confirmation from M/s Thakkar  

& Associates that there was no subsisting agreement  

for sale in their favour in respect of the property  

agreed to be sold.  

4. On 18th February, 1980, the Appellant and Mr.  

K.V.  Thakkar  filed  Suit  No.252  of  1980  in  the  

Bombay  High  Court  against  Mr.  K.L.  Danani  (the  

Respondent No.44) and Mr. S.S. Thakkar, inter alia,  

praying for a declaration that a partnership had  

existed between them and that Mr. K.L. Danani and  

6

Mr.  S.S.  Thakkar  had  retired  from  M/s  Swas  

Construction Company.  

5. It appears that in February, 1980, in Notice of  

Motion No.283 of 1980 filed in the said Suit, Mr.  

K.L. Danani undertook not to part with possession  

of the suit lands pending disposal of the Notice of  

Motion, which was disposed of on 9th October, 1980,  

by the Bombay High Court by appointing the Court  

Receiver over the properties.    

6. On 15th May, 1981, the Vaitys terminated the  

Agreement dated 18th June, 1979, entered into with  

M/s Modern Development Corporation (the Respondent  

No.24).  This prompted the Respondent No.1 to file  

Suit No.1578 of 1981 against the Vaitys and the  

partners of M/s Modern Development Corporation on  

7th September, 1981, for specific performance of the  

purported Agreements dated 18th June, 1979 and 24th  

August, 1979.  On 1st July, 1982, the Bombay High  

Court passed an order restraining the Vaitys and  

7

the partners of the Respondent No.4 from selling,  

transferring,  encumbering,  alienating  or  further  

parting with possession of the suit lands pending  

disposal of Suit No.1578 of 1981.   After the death  

of Mr. Babu Vaity on 1st May, 1994, all the parties  

to  Suit  No.252  of  1980,  entered  into  a  

comprehensive settlement with the Vaitys, Mr. K.L.  

Danani (the Respondent No.44) and one Mulchand G.  

Mehta (the Respondent No.47) and in order to give  

effect  to  the  settlement,  the  Vaitys  and  the  

Respondent No.47 were joined as defendants in Suit  

No.252 of 1980.  On the very same day, the Bombay  

High  Court  decreed  the  suit  on  consent  terms.  

Pursuant  to  the  terms  and  conditions  arrived  at  

between the parties, the Respondent No.48 took out  

Notice of Motion No.140 of 1999 in Suit No.1578 of  

1981, praying that the order dated 1st July, 1982,  

be vacated.   The Vaitys also took out Notice of  

Motion No.2700 of 1999 in the said Suit, praying  

for the same order.  In August, 2000, M/s Kiran  

8

Construction  Company  took  out  Chamber  Summons  

No.1203 of 2000 in Suit No.1578 of 1981, seeking to  

amend  the  plaint  so  as  to  join  the  Respondent  

Nos.13 to 19 as defendants and also to incorporate  

a challenge to the decree dated 6.5.1998 passed by  

the Bombay High Court in Suit No.252 of 1980.  The  

said Chamber Summons was dismissed by the learned  

Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on 21st June,  

2001, and the injunction granted on 1st July, 1982,  

was vacated.  The said order of injunction was also  

vacated by a common order of even date passed in  

Notices of Motion No.140 and No.2700 of 1999.   

7. Three Appeals were filed by the Respondent No.1  

herein before the Division Bench of the Bombay High  

Court, being Appeal Nos.745, 747 and 748 of 2001,  

all  challenging  the  order  dated  21st June, 2001,  

passed  by  the  Bombay  High  Court,  vacating  the  

interim order of injunction dated 1st July, 1982.  

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed  

9

all  the  three  Appeals  by  its  orders  dated  16th  

November, 2006 and 17th November, 2006, passed in  

Appeal  No.745  of  2001  in  Chamber  Summons  

No.1203/2000 in Suit No.1578/1981 filed by Kiran  

Construction Company and in Appeal Nos.747 and 748  

of 2001 in Notices of Motion Nos.2700 and 140 of  

1999  respectively,  filed  in  the  said  Suit.  The  

amendment of the plaint was allowed and the order  

of  injunction  passed  on  1st July,  1982,  was  

restored.  The  present  Appeals  have  been  filed  

against the said orders of the High Court allowing  

the  amendment  of  the  plaint  and  joining  the  

Respondent Nos.13 to 19 as additional defendants in  

the suit.

8. Appearing for the appellants in these appeals,  

Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Senior Advocate, submitted that  

there  is  no  dispute  that  the  lands  forming  the  

subject  matter  of  these  proceedings  originally  

belonged  to  the  Vaitys  and  that  on  1st October,  

10

1973, the Vaitys entered into an agreement for sale  

of the said lands with Mr. K.L. Danani, who later  

on brought the benefits of the said agreement to  

M/s  Swas  Construction  Company  of  which  the  

appellants are partners.  

9. It  is  also  not  disputed  that  on  18th June,  

1979,  the  Vaitys  entered  into  a  development  

agreement with M/s Modern Development Corporation  

which  was  an  unregistered  partnership  firm.  The  

said partnership firm, in its turn, entered into an  

agreement with M/s Kiran Construction Company on  

24th August, 1979.  Mr. Rohtagi submitted that both  

Modern  Development  Corporation  and  Kiran  

Construction Company had knowledge of the existing  

agreements entered into by the Vaitys for sale of  

the lands.  It is on account of such knowledge that  

the Respondent No.1 in its agreement with Modern  

Development Corporation included a clause that the  

latter  would  cause  the  Vaitys  to  make  out  a  

11

marketable  title  to  the  property,  and  if  they  

failed  to  make  out  a  marketable  title,  all  the  

monies paid to Kiran Construction Company would be  

returned to it with interest at the rate of 12% per  

annum.  As  indicated  hereinbefore,  the  agreement  

which  was  entered  into  between  the  Vaitys  and  

Modern Development Corporation on 18th June, 1979,  

was  terminated  by  the  Vaitys  on  15th May,  1981,  

prompting Kiran Construction Company to file Suit  

No.1578 of 1981 in the Bombay High Court in which  

an  interim  order  was  passed  by  the  Bombay  High  

Court restraining the Vaitys and the partners of  

Modern  Development  Corporation  from  selling,  

transferring or further parting with possession of  

the suit lands.  

10. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that in view of the said  

order of injunction, on 10th November, 1981, Babu  

Vaity  filed  an  affidavit  in  Notice  of  Motion  

No.1271 of 1981 indicating that on 15th May, 1981,  

12

the Vaitys had terminated the agreement dated 18th  

June, 1979, with Modern Development Corporation and  

that  a  separate  agreement  had  been  executed  in  

favour of one Mr. Ashok Kumar Goyal and Mr. Gosalia  

granting them development rights in respect of the  

suit lands.  Despite the above, on 1st July, 1982,  

the Bombay High Court passed an order in Notice of  

Motion No.12671 of 1981 in the suit filed by the  

Respondent No.1 and restrained the Vaitys and the  

partners  of  Modern  Development  Corporation  from  

selling,  transferring,  encumbering,  alienating  or  

from further parting with possession of the suit  

lands, pending disposal of the suit filed by the  

Respondent No.1 herein.  Mr. Rohtagi submitted that  

on  27th March,  1984,  the  Respondent  No.1  was  

informed  by  a  letter  written  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants regarding the claims of the appellants  

herein, the filing of Suit No.252 of 1980 and the  

appointment  of  the  Court  Receiver  who  had  taken  

over possession of the suit properties.  

13

11. As indicated hereinbefore, on the death of Babu  

Vaity,  all  the  parties  to  Suit  No.252  of  1980  

arrived  at  a  comprehensive  settlement  with  the  

Vaitys, the Respondent No.44 and one Mulchand G.  

Mehta, the Respondent No.47.  On the same day, the  

Bombay High Court passed a decree on the consent  

terms arrived at between the parties in Suit No.252  

of 1980.  Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the High Court  

vide  order  dated  21st June,  2001,  dismissed  the  

Chamber Summons taken out by the Respondent No.1  

and  also  vacated  the  injunction  granted  in  Suit  

No.1578 of 1981 on 1st July, 1982.  Mr. Rohtagi  

submitted  that  the  order  of  the  learned  Single  

Judge was challenged in Appeal and was ultimately  

set  aside  and  the  prayer  for  amendment  of  the  

plaint made by the Respondent No.1 was allowed.  

12. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that Kiran Construction  

Company did not have any privity of contract with  

the Vaitys. Furthermore, the Vaitys had terminated  

14

their agreement with Modern Development Corporation  

with whom Kiran Construction Company had entered  

into an agreement and such termination had not been  

challenged  by  Modern  Development  Corporation,  

particularly since it is an unregistered firm and,  

therefore,  could  not  sue  or  be  sued  under  the  

provisions of Section 64 of the Partnership Act.  

Mr. Rohtagi submitted that when Modern Development  

Corporation  was  unable  to  compel  the  Vaitys  to  

perform  their  part  of  the  contract,  Kiran  

Construction Company, whose claim, if any, to the  

suit  properties,  was  through  Modern  Development  

Corporation,  could  not  compel  the  Vaitys  to  

specifically  enforce  the  contract  between  the  

Vaitys  and  Modern  Development  Corporation.  

Accordingly, the entire exercise undertaken by the  

Respondent No.1 was but an exercise in futility and  

the Division Bench while allowing the prayer for  

impleadment made on behalf of Kiran Construction  

Company erred in injuncting the Vaitys and also the  

15

Thakkars from taking steps to develop the property.

13. Mr. Rohtagi urged that even the fact that a  

Receiver  had  been  appointed  over  the  suit  

properties and the properties were, therefore, in  

custodia  legis had  been  suppressed,  and,  in  any  

event, since the properties were in custodia legis,  

the order of injunction could not have been passed.  

Mr. Rohtagi submitted that since Kiran Construction  

Company had no privity of contract with the Vaitys  

and  Modern  Development  Corporation  being  an  

unregistered partnership, there was no possibility  

whatsoever of the suit filed by Kiran Construction  

Company ever being decreed.  For such reason also,  

the  order  of  injunction  passed  by  the  Division  

Bench was liable to be vacated.    

14. Mr.  Rohtagi  submitted  that  from  the  orders  

passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High  

Court on 17th November, 2006, disposing of Appeal  

Nos. 747 and 748 of 2001 arising out of the orders  

16

passed by the learned Single Judge in Notices of  

Motion No.2700 and 140 of 1999, it would be evident  

that  the  said  appeals  were  allowed  merely  as  a  

consequence  of  the  order  passed  earlier  on  16th  

November, 2006, in Appeal No.745/2001 in connection  

with the Chamber Summons No.1203/2000 taken out by  

Kiran Construction Company.  Mr. Rohtagi submitted  

that no reasons, other than what has been indicated  

hereinabove,  were  given  for  allowing  the  said  

appeals  and  accordingly,  while  Civil  Appeal  

No.2573/2008 was disposed of, consequential orders  

were  passed  whereby  the  other  appeals  were  also  

disposed of.

15. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that since this Court had  

earlier on 9th April, 2008, affirmed the order of  

the  learned  Single  Judge  and  had  rejected  the  

Chamber  Summons  for  impleadment,  consequential  

orders were required to be passed for setting aside  

the order dated 17th November, 2006, passed by the  

17

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal  

Nos.747 and 748 of 2001 and also to vacate the  

interim order dated 1st July, 1982, passed in Suit  

No.1578  of  1981  filed  by  the  Respondent  No.1  

herein.

16. While adopting Mr. Rohtagi’s submissions, Mr.  

Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for  

Respondent Nos.2A to 2E, 3 to 16, 18, 19 and 31 in  

IA No.6 of 2008, prayed for clarification of the  

judgment  and  order  passed  by  this  Court  on  9th  

April, 2008, in Civil Appeal No.2573 of 2008 to the  

extent that as a consequence of the order dated 16th  

November,  2006,  passed  in  Appeal  no.745  of  2001  

being  set  aside,  the  order  dated  17th November,  

2006, passed by the Division Bench in Appeal No.747  

of 2001 and Appeal no.748 of 2001 were also set  

aside.   

17. Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar  submitted  that  after  the  

prayer for amendment of the plaint was disallowed  

18

by  this  Court,  it  was  only  through  inadvertence  

that consequential orders were not recorded as far  

as the two appeals are concerned and that when the  

Vaitys were not before the Court in the suit filed  

by  it,  the  Respondent  No.1  could  have  no  

justification for submitting that the interim order  

passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  

should be allowed to remain.  He also reiterated  

Mr. Rohtagi’s submissions that when there was no  

privity of contract between the Respondent No.1,  

Kiran Construction Company, and the Vaitys and its  

suit was for relief only against Modern Development  

Corporation,  the  agreement  entered  into  between  

Modern Development Corporation and the Vaitys could  

not be specifically enforced by the said Respondent  

and  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  had  

committed an error in allowing the interim order of  

injunction to continue against the appeals.   

19

18. On the other hand, Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan,  

learned Advocate appearing for Kiran Construction  

Company,  urged  that  the  rejection  of  the  prayer  

made on behalf of the Respondent No.1 for leave to  

amend  the  plaint  did  not  mean  that  the  orders  

prayed  for  in  these  appeals  would  follow  as  a  

matter  of  consequence.   It  was  urged  that  the  

judgment delivered by this Court on 9th April, 2008,  

was  only  concerned  with  the  challenge  to  the  

amendment  and  that  the  scope  of  the  appeal  was  

limited to the amendment of the plaint.   According  

to learned counsel, the prayer for injunction was  

made on account of the decision of the Respondent  

No.1 to file a separate suit and it was in that  

context that the prayer for injunction to continue  

till the hearing of the new suit could be taken up.  

Mr. Ranganadhan submitted that, in any event, at no  

point of time was any indication given that any  

argument  was  to  be  advanced  on  the  question  of  

remand to the Division Bench.

20

19. Mr. Ranganadhan also urged that the prayer for  

vacating the interim order that had lasted for 16  

years  should  not  have  been  entertained.  He  

submitted that the appeals were misconceived and  

were liable to be dismissed.

20. From  the  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  

respective parties and the materials on record, it  

is quite apparent that the Chamber Summons No.1203  

of 2000 taken out by Kiran Construction Company for  

leave to amend its suit to incorporate a challenge  

to the consent decree passed in Suit No.252 of 1980  

and also to implead the appellants herein, Mr. K.L.  

Danani and Mr. Mulchand G. Mehta as defendants in  

the suit, was heard along with and Notice of Motion  

No.140 of 1999 filed by the Receiver and Notice of  

Motion No.2700 of 1999 filed by Vaitys for vacating  

the order of injunction dated 1st July, 1982, were  

taken  up  for  hearing  together.  While  Chamber  

Summons  filed  by  Kiran  Construction  Company  was  

21

dismissed,  the  Notices  of  Motion  filed  by  the  

Receiver and the Vaitys were allowed and the order  

of injunction dated 1st July, 1982, was vacated.

21. Since the three appeals before the High Court  

were filed by Kiran Construction Company against  

the orders passed by the learned Single judge on  

the Chamber Summons and the two Notices of Motion,  

the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  while  

considering the said appeals, allowed the prayer  

for amendment of the plaint and as a consequence  

reversed the learned Single Judge’s order on the  

two Notices of Motion and remanded the Notice of  

Motion for fresh hearing.   

22. In the Civil Appeal filed by the appellants  

herein  against  the  three  orders  passed  by  the  

Division Bench, although, by order dated 9th April,  

2008, the Appeal was allowed and the order of the  

Division Bench allowing the amendment prayed for by  

the  Respondent  No.1  was  set  aside,  through  

22

inadvertence, no orders were passed in respect of  

the appeals against the orders passed on the two  

Notices of Motion for vacating the interim order  

dated 1st July, 1982.  It is for clarification of  

the said order that the interim applications have  

been filed which are under consideration.

23. Once the prayer for amendment of the plaint to  

include the challenge to the consent decree passed  

in  Suit  No.252  of  1980  was  disallowed  by  this  

Court,  the  question  of  restraining  them  from  

dealing  with  the  suit  properties  over  which  the  

Respondent No.1 has no established claim would be  

completely unreasonable and merely because the same  

had been in force for a long time, would be no  

ground to allow the same to continue.  

24. Admittedly, as pointed out by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi  

and  Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  learned  Senior  Advocates,  

there  is  no  privity  of  contract  between  Kiran  

Construction Company and the Vaitys, its claim is,  

23

therefore,  restricted  to  Modern  Development  

Corporation alone and is also dependent upon the  

right of Modern Development Corporation to specific  

performance of its agreement with the Vaitys.  In  

other words, until and unless Modern Development  

Corporation is able to establish a right over the  

suit  properties,  Kiran  Construction  Company  can  

have no claim in respect thereof.   Furthermore,  

since the Receiver continues to be in possession of  

the suit properties and the properties continue to  

be in  custodia legis,  Kiran Construction Company  

cannot ask for possession of the said properties.   

25. In our view, the claim attempted to be set up  

by Kiran Construction Company is highly tenuous and  

is  entirely  dependent  upon  the  claim  of  Modern  

Development  Corporation  which  has  so  far  not  

attempted  to  establish  such  claim.  In  such  

circumstances  it  would  be  wholly  inequitable  to  

24

allow the interim order to continue. The same is  

accordingly vacated.  

26. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Official  

Receiver  and  the  Vaitys  must  succeed  and  are  

allowed.  Simultaneously, Interlocutory Application  

Nos.4, 6 and 7 for clarification of the judgment  

and order dated 9th April, 2008, passed in Civil  

Appeal  No.2573/2008  and  Interlocutory  Application  

No.8  for  filing  additional  documents  are  also  

disposed of by virtue of this judgment.  Further  

more,  the  following  clerical  mistakes  have  been  

pointed out in paragraph 7 of the I.A.No. 4 with  

regard  to  the  judgment  dated  9.4.2008  passed  in  

Civil Appeal No. 2573 of 2008:

a. “In paragraph 2, page 1, line 3, the word  “Serial” ought to be “Survey”.

b. The  reference  to  “K.B.  Thakkar”  in  paragraph 2, paragraph 4 and paragraph 11  ought to be “K.V.Thakkar”;

c. The submission at paragraph 21 was in fact  the  submission  made  on  behalf  of  the  Petitioner and not on behalf of Respondent  No.1.; and

25

d. In paragraph 16, page 15, line 1 the word  “respondent” is to be read as “Respondent  No.1.”

Let  a  Corrigendum  be  issued  with  regard  to  the  

errors  indicated  above.  As  far  as  Interlocutory  

Application No.5 for deletion of the names of the  

Respondent  Nos.17,  20,  22,  25(a),  25(b),  25(c),  

25(d) and 27, is concerned, the same is allowed at  

the risk of the appellant.

  27. Inasmuch as, these appeals have been taken from  

interlocutory orders and the suit of the Respondent  

No.1 is still pending, we make it clear that the  

observations made in this order are only for the  

purpose  of  disposal  of  the  applications  for  

vacating the interim orders and such observations  

should not influence the learned Trial Court from  

disposing of the pending suits, in accordance with  

law.  

26

28. There will, however, be no order as to costs.  

________________J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

________________J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi Dated: May 15, 2009

27