JUDGMENT Heard finally at the stage of admission in view of urgency expressed by the parties. 2. The Appellants/original Plaintiffs have challenged impugned order dated 30 November 2013 passed by the learned judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai. The operative part of the order is as under: “1. Notice of Motion No. 1396/2010 is hereby rejected. 2. Notice of Motion No. 3339/2013 is hereby allowed. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Notice of Motion Nos. 1396/2010 and 3339/2013 stand disposed off accordingly.” 3. Notice of Motion No.1396/2010 is filed by the Appellants/original Plaintiffs (First Motion). Notice of Motion No.3339/2013 is filed by the Developer/applicant (Second Motion). 4. The relevant prayers in Second Motion was as under: “(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to vacate the order dated 16th June 2010 read with orders dated 19th October 2010.” 5. The learned Judge on 16.06.2010 passed the order of status-quo. The relevant part was as under : “At this prima facie stage it is clear that entire structure of the plaintiff Trust has been demolished by the corporation. Even it is submitted at bar by Mr. Gandhy that material of construction after demolition has been almost removed by the corporation. It means as on today no structure is in existence. However plaintiff prayed for not to create third party interest or raising of compound wall by the MMC. The advocate for deft has submitted she had no instruction from the office of MMC in detail. Considering the fact of demolition as well as order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in Writ Petition No.1731/09 so also the judgments produced by plaintiff it is necessary to keep the premises as it is i.e. parties to the suit to maintain status quo of the suit property till next date. Therefore I proceed to pass following order : ORDER Both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo In respect of the suit premises till next date. Deft is directed to file reply. Plffis directed to communicate the order to the concerned Ward Officer. NM to be registered. Adjdto 3rd July, 2010 for NM reply.” 6. By order dated 19.10.2010 the same order continued till further orders. The same has been in force till the passing of the impugned order. 7. The Second Motion i.e. 3339/13 was taken out on 6.9.2013 by the developer/applicant to vacate the above status quo order. NM to be registered. Adjdto 3rd July, 2010 for NM reply.” 6. By order dated 19.10.2010 the same order continued till further orders. The same has been in force till the passing of the impugned order. 7. The Second Motion i.e. 3339/13 was taken out on 6.9.2013 by the developer/applicant to vacate the above status quo order. Chamber Summons No.2006/2013 to implead as party as filed on the same date is still pending. 8. The Respondent/Corporation whose action challenged in the Suit by the Plaintiffs, never filed any application to vacate the status-quo so granted. 9. The Society was impleaded lateron on 20.4.2013 also never moved such application/Motion. 10. On 16.09.2013, the learned Judge rejected/not granted relief as sought by the developer in Second Motion being 3339/13. The same was challenged. On 10.10.2013 this Court passed the order and directed to expedite the two Motions, to be disposed of within eight weeks. The necessary observations are as under: “3. The Suit filed by Respondent-original Plaintiff is still pending along with Notice of Motion/Chamber Summons so taken out from time to time, by the parties and have to be dealt with in accordance with law together. Ad-interim exparte relief obtained by the Plaintiff dated 16.6.2013/2010 extended by order dated 19.10.2010 till further order. That has been in force till this date. 5. …....However, it is made clear that the submissions itself so made by the parties and if it affects the project in question, it is desirable that the hearing of Notice of Motion No.3339 of 2013 itself be expedited. However, for the same reason it is also desirable that the Notice of Motion which is pending since long in which interim orders are passed also required to be decided early. However, certainly after giving an opportunity to all the parties to file necessary reply and/or document in support of their case. 7. Both Notice of Motions are expedited and to be heard and disposed of as early as possible, preferably within eight weeks, by giving opportunity to all concerned.” 11. The praecipe was disposed of on 22.11.2013 as moved for a clarification. 12. Admittedly on 10.10.2013 apart from two Motions, other proceedings including chamber summons taken out by the respective parties, were pending. 13. The praecipe was disposed of on 22.11.2013 as moved for a clarification. 12. Admittedly on 10.10.2013 apart from two Motions, other proceedings including chamber summons taken out by the respective parties, were pending. 13. The Plaintiffs in First Motion was allowed on 16.02.2013, where a prayer, apart from the pleading is added for restoration of the possession of the suit property. 14. Second Chamber Summons No.706/13 for amendment for bringing more material/averments on record, including addition of parties, filed on 25.03.2013. The Respondent/Corporation filed/affidavit in reply to the Plaintiffs' First Motion on 25.09.2012. They filed second affidavit on 28.10.2013, in a way supporting a case to vacate the status-quo order granted. 15. The Society filed their affidavit on 23.10.2013. Plaintiffs filed reply to Second Motion taken out by a developer on 24.10.2013 again by giving details referring to the pending Writ Petition No.1731/2009. 16. The Corporation filed a second affidavit on 28.10.2013. 17. The Appellants/plaintiffs filed rejoinder to all the affidavits filed by the contesting Defendants on 16.11.2013, thereby again reiterated and provided the details of all the events till the date of filing of the rejoinder. 18. The Appellants/plaintiffs on 22.11.2013 even after filing of the rejoinder affidavit/reply to the Motions, including the Motion taken out by the developer, submitted to the trial Judge that along with Motions, all the Chamber Summonses and Notice of Motions also be heard referring to order dated 10.10.2013 passed by this Court as quoted above. 19. The learned Judge, however, did not consider to pass any order on the chamber summons, but proceeded to hear the Motions as directed. 20. The learned Judge, however, referred Chamber Summons No. 857/2013 filed by the applicants/developer in paragraphs 16 and 19 and also the documents, but no reference to the other chamber summons so filed by the appellant/plaintiffs, including of amendment so sought. 21. Strikingly, the learned Judge has allowed Notice of Motion No.3339/2013 filed by the developer, whose chamber summons itself is pending to implead as a party. The learned Judge, though recorded the pendency of the said chamber summons, but being affected person in view of the interim order passed by this Court, heard the developer also. As noted, no other contesting party filed such Motion except the developer, who, on the date of disposal of the Motion, was not even joined and/or impleaded as a party. The learned Judge, though recorded the pendency of the said chamber summons, but being affected person in view of the interim order passed by this Court, heard the developer also. As noted, no other contesting party filed such Motion except the developer, who, on the date of disposal of the Motion, was not even joined and/or impleaded as a party. No reason is provided why this chamber summons were not disposed of and/or decided, except by observing that this Court on 10.10.2013 directed to dispose of these two Motions. 22. There is no justification whatsoever on record with regard to the missing steps which ought to have been taken by the other contesting Respondents when they were party since inception of the proceedings, to vacate the status-quo order so granted. 23. After going through the order so passed by the learned judge, it is clear that as no opportunity given to the Appellants/plaintiffs by not considering the chamber summons for amendment and further by not even considering to hear and/or accept the contentions revolving around the events till the date of the filing of affidavit in reply as well as in rejoinder dated 16.11.2013. If this Court has directed to dispose of the two Motions by giving opportunity to all the parties, this means and include permitting them to agitate their submissions, based upon the affidavit, reply and rejoinder filed on record, apart from supporting documents. The averments so made in the reply to the Notice of Motion taken out by the developer and so also the rejoinder to the affidavit, reply filed by other contesting party, the same events as well as the material so read and referred are part of Chamber Summons No.706/2013 as the same was filed on 16.02.2013. The situation is that though the Appellants/plaintiffs are permitted to file rejoinder which covers the case/events upto 16.11.2013, the learned Judge even not considered to grant the chamber summons which is admitted pending for second amendment. In the result, the learned Judge heard the parties on the basis of Motions so filed principally by the developer who was not joined as party to the proceedings. 24. The Appellant/plaintiff's Notice of Motion was pending since 2010. The developer filed Notice of Motion on 6.9.2013 as even on that date the orders of status-quo were in force. In the result, the learned Judge heard the parties on the basis of Motions so filed principally by the developer who was not joined as party to the proceedings. 24. The Appellant/plaintiff's Notice of Motion was pending since 2010. The developer filed Notice of Motion on 6.9.2013 as even on that date the orders of status-quo were in force. When this Court says and direct the trial judge to consider the material by giving full opportunity and basically when even on those dates and chamber summons and Motions were pending, not to consider those chamber summons, in my view, was never contemplated and even cannot be stated to be the procedure when Court directed that both the Motions be heard and disposed of by giving opportunity to all the parties. The averments/submissions so made, based upon the replies filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs referring to the averments including of pending Writ Petition No.1731/2009 and subsequent events, if is a part of rejoinder/reply, the same at least ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The amendment, if not allowed, the submission of other side and even as observed by the learned Judge, not granted hearing and/or opportunity to the Appellants/plaintiffs to put his case, on the basis of averments/documents so placed on record, for the specific pleading, revolving around the averments so made and/or any reply/rejoinder, this in my view, definitely breaches the basic principles of fair, equal opportunity, apart from natural justice specifically when the learned Judge by not giving opportunity as contemplated, proceeded to hear even at this prima facie stage that the Appellant/plaintiffs have no title and they are not in possession over the suit disputed structure and thereby further observed that there is no question of causing any irreparable loss or injury to the Plaintiffs as the structures were already demolished. The amendment already granted whereby the Plaintiffs have asked even for restoration of the plot in question, by overlooking the averments made in reply as well as rejoinder, revolving around various challenges including the scheme/allotment of plot and the demolition of the structure at the relevant time in the year 2010. 25. The amendment already granted whereby the Plaintiffs have asked even for restoration of the plot in question, by overlooking the averments made in reply as well as rejoinder, revolving around various challenges including the scheme/allotment of plot and the demolition of the structure at the relevant time in the year 2010. 25. The submissions are made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have committed fraud and/or obtained the order of status-quo by suppressing various material documents and necessary events, including of valid/possession of portion of the property in question. The contesting Respondents, at the relevant time, never agitated this issue at the earliest point of time. Even the developer's case is that they were not aware of grant of status-quo order passed by this Court in the year 2010. All the concerned parties were fully aware of the various litigations, writ petition as well as special leave petitions filed by the Appellants and other parties revolving around, the issues including of dispossession and/or restoration of the plot in question, apart from the development of the property by the developer as contemplated under Regulation 33 of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991. 26. The relevancy of above observation is that while passing the interim status-quo order, as recorded above, the learned Judge specifically noted about the demolition of the structure by the Corporation on 16.6.2010 …. and also noted the order passed in Writ Petition No.1731/2009, which is still pending in the High Court. The learned Judge, therefore, on the date when passed such order, taking note of these factual background including the pendency of the writ petition, the issue of fraud/misrepresentation and the relevant/subsequent events, though placed on record by affidavit as well as rejoinder, the learned Judge has not considered those facts and passed the order by overlooking the averments/chamber summons for amendment so filed, though the reply as well as rejoinder filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs contends and provide the same and/or substantial material including the averments so made in Writ Petition NO.1731/2009. The opportunity, therefore, ought to have been given when the contesting parties, after so many years, wants the Courts to vacate the order so passed in the year 2010. 27. The opportunity, therefore, ought to have been given when the contesting parties, after so many years, wants the Courts to vacate the order so passed in the year 2010. 27. When we come to Writ Petition No.1731/2009 in question, both the learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting parties, strongly relied upon the order passed in favour of the developer against the Appellants with regard to the development of the property in question. The writ petition was filed prior in point of time. No interim relief granted in favour of the Appellants, therefore, Special Leave Petition was filed. The Division Bench of this Court, in view of order of remand, reconsidered the aspect only of grant of interim protection/relief. The Division Bench on 26.6.2012, based upon the Supreme Court judgment in Girish Vyas's case, whereby now it is settled that Development Plan (DP) would prevail over Town Planning Scheme (TPS), permitted the development of the property, including the suit portion. The issue, therefore, so agitated by; the Appellants/plaintiffs apart from other, the issue of DP versus TPS, was pending since long basically between the parties and for the property in question. Even prior to 14.10.2011 three Special Leave Petitions were also disposed of by Supreme Court by remanding the matter back to the High Court. Therefore, even the society/developer were fully aware of the contesting issues so raised. The fact of pendency of the suit in question since 2010, including the challenge so raised by the Plaintiffs, therefore, is not foreign to anyone. 28. The Appellants then preferred Special Leave Petition against order dated 26.06.2012, thereby challenge was again raised to the order of permitting to develop the property in question. The SLP was filed in July 2012. As noted, all other averments so recorded/file thereafter including the Notice of Motion by the developer. The said SLP permitted to be withdrawn of 26.11.2013. Even after the first order passed by this Court on 10.10.2013 or even an application filed by the Appellants were request was made to hear all the pending chamber summons and the Motions. 29. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while permitting the Appellants to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions, granted liberty to apply for amendment so sought in pending Writ Petition No.1731/2009 of Appellants. 29. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while permitting the Appellants to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions, granted liberty to apply for amendment so sought in pending Writ Petition No.1731/2009 of Appellants. The Appellants, though not moved, application for amendment in the writ petition, the fact of permitting the Appellants, the amendment to the pleading and further observed to consider the same in accordance with law, just cannot be overlooked at this stage of the proceedings. 30. The effect of IOD granted on 17.11.1994, the undertaking given by the Appellants and based upon which developed the part of Plot No.265 by taking necessary permission, which was subject to various conditions, including handing over the remaining portion including the suit portion to the Corporation, the withdrawal of such undertaking on a foundation of mistake of facts and law, the abrupt possession so taken by the Corporation on 14.10.2010 and handing over of the plot in question to developer, the effect of interim order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition, the status-quo order passed by the trial Court on 16.10.2010 and continued on 19.10.2010 and remained intact till this date and the pending of writ petition and the permission so granted by the Supreme Court to amend the pleading, this in my view, just cannot be adjudicated without giving full opportunity to all the parties even though at this prima facie stage. This, in no way, means and to read that the Court has passed and/or accepted the contention so raised by the Appellants/plaintiffs. This is only for giving full opportunity to all the parties as the question is not of demolition of the structure owned by the Appellants at the relevant time, but it is also question of title and ownership of the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 31. The third party right so created in view of the permitted development to the Appellants/plaintiffs by the Society and the right so created is, therefore, required to be considered at the earliest. 32. The submission is that the huge amount/expenditure incurred by the developer apart from the basic payment so made, as recorded above to all the tenants, who vacated their respective premises, are already provided with the compensation/rent in lieu of accommodation. The process is on since 2008. Till this date about Rs. 17 crores and odd has already spent by the developer. The process is on since 2008. Till this date about Rs. 17 crores and odd has already spent by the developer. The Court, normally, could have taken this aspect as a relevant fact for granting and/or vacating the injunction/status-quo order so obtained, but the fact that the status-quo in question has been force since 16.10.2010 and the Motions so taken out only by the developer now in 2013, whatsoever may be the reason, is a factor which, in my view, should not affect and/or takes away the rights of Appellants/Plaintiffs to contest the proceedings including the action of Respondent/Corporation so stated above as prayer is also made for restoration of plot in question. Therefore, without observing further on merits including preliminary points about the maintainability of the Suit so discussed by the learned Judge, that there was no such prayer and/or objection specifically raised at appropriate time, before proceeding with the matter, the observation/finding so given on merits, in my view, is without giving opportunity though asked for and as prayed for, therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order. However, with further direction that all the chamber summonses or other proceedings, if any, pending, be heard and disposed of at the earliest within four weeks. Both the Notice of Motions be heard thereafter by giving opportunity to all the concerned parties. 33. Therefore, the observations made by this Court, while disposing of the present Appeal are for deciding the present Appeal only. All the points are kept open. 34. Resultantly, the following order : ORDER (i) Impugned order is quashed and set aside. (ii) All chamber summons be heard and disposed of within four weeks from today. (iii) Both the Motions being Notice of Motion Nos. 1396/2010 and 3339/2013 are restored for rehearing. To be disposed of within four weeks, thereafter. (iv) The learned judge to pass appropriate order in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present Order/observation in this Order. (v) The status-quo order which has been in force since 16.10.2010 and as continued from time to time and even by this Court to continue till the disposal of Notice of Motions. (vi) Hearing of Suit is expedited. (vii) The Appeal is accordingly allowed. (viii) There shall be no order as to costs. (ix) In view of disposal of Appeal, Civil Application (ST) No.34249/2013 is also disposed of accordingly.