JUDGMENT : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. 1. Being admitted matters as listed today for final hearing. Heard accordingly. 2. The Appeal is against order dated 12 October 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, in a Suit, the Appellant/Plaintiff's prayer/application for injunction was rejected with following observations: “1. By this suit, the plaintiff is claiming decree in the amount of Rs.2,75,27,228/ (Rupees Two crores seventy Five lakhs Twenty seven thousands two hundred twenty eight only). The averments in paragraph 13 of the plaint shows that, according to the plaintiff, this amount is the market price of the shares. But in the plaint no averments are to be found as to on what date this was the market price of the shares. Apart from the averments not being found in the plaint, there is also no document produced so as to show that this will be the market price of the share on any date. It is thus clear that the plaintiff has not even established any prima facie case in its favour. In the absence of any prima facie case, obviously, the plaintiff is not entitled to any interim order. The notice of motion is therefore, disposed of. 2. At this stage a request is made for continuing the adinterim order. The request is rejected.” 3. The prayers in the Suit are for the recovery of the amount based upon the share market/ security transactions. The parties, as there were defaults, but to settle the situation, have admittedly executed mortgage deeds referring to various properties, including the property described in the order passed by Division Bench dated 4 December 2006 in Notice of Motion in present Appeal while admitting it: “After hearing the senior counsel for the appellant and the senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6, we are satisfied that the following interim order shall meet the ends of justice. The respondents No. 2, 4 and 6 are restrained from disposing of, transferring, selling or creating any third party right or interest in any form or of any nature whatsoever in respect of flat No. 83, 8th floor, A1 Apartment, A1 Cooperative Housing Society Limited, 270, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai – 400 006. Notice of Motion stands disposed of.” There are other properties mentioned in the said mortgage deed at Exhibit “G”. 4. Notice of Motion stands disposed of.” There are other properties mentioned in the said mortgage deed at Exhibit “G”. 4. The Suit is pending since 2005 and the Appeal in question is pending since 2006. The interim protection so granted by the Division Bench has been in force till this date. This is additional factor apart from the case of Appellant/plaintiff for recovery of the amount of Rs.2,75,27,228/- of which about Rs.1,85,00,000/- has been paid by the Appellant to the Respondents, for the various security transactions, as stated to be not done and, therefore, the prayers for recovery of such amount and the consequential reliefs. 5. The submission is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that in totality the claim is for the recovery of damages. Therefore, unless it is ascertained and decided and/or adjudicated, there is no question of granting protective relief as observed by the learned Single Judge; therefore, there was no question to pass or interfere with the impugned order. No prima-facie case and/or case for any protective relief is made out to continue the protection so granted by the Division Bench in the year 2006. 6. After considering the averments as well as the submissions so made by the counsel appearing for the parties, based upon the above facts itself, that the Suit is for the recovery of the amount so prayed. This is not a Suit for damages whereby the parties/Appellant, for the first time, claiming for undetermined money claim on the basis of breach. There was advance payment made for entering into the transactions. In addition to this, as there was default, the parties even executed various mortgage deeds, referred in Exhibit G, the equitable charges on the assets described therein have been created. Therefore, in totality, though the first prayer is made for the recovery of the amount that itself, cannot be stated to be the claim for damages, for the purposes of granting and/or considering the case for interim and/or adinterim reliefs of the nature in question. In the background, the learned Division Bench has passed the order on 4 December 2006, which remained intact till this date. There is no further challenge raised to this order. In the background, the learned Division Bench has passed the order on 4 December 2006, which remained intact till this date. There is no further challenge raised to this order. After lapse of 11 years, the submission is that the interim order so passed by the Appellate Bench, to be discontinued; and the Appeal be dismissed on the foundation that the Suit is for recovery of damages and not for any other relief. This submission is unsustainable. The prayers itself read with the background so referred above and the existing order passed by the Division Bench on 4 December 2006, in our view, is sufficient to protect the interest of Appellant/plaintiff pending the disposal of the Suit. 7. In the result, we are inclined to allow this Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, substituting the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 4 December 2006 till the final disposal of the Suit. 8. However, in view of the fact that this is a commercial transaction and the Suit itself is of 2005 and the issues are already framed and correspondences are also exchanged for discovery and inspection of the documents, we are inclined to expedite the trial proceedings. The parties to cooperate so that the Suit can be disposed of expeditiously. 9. The Appeal is allowed accordingly in the above terms. The Suit is expedited. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.