1 of 4 11.AO.736.2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.736 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5774 OF 2026 M/s.Indo Build Enterprise, a sole proprietorship of V.K.Vaishnani, 517-518, Atlanta Estate, near Virani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (East), Appellant Mumbai-400063. (Org.Defendant no.2) versus Dev Ratan G.Mohta, R/o.E Flat, Winter Green, Rivali Park, W.E.Highway, Borivali (East), Respondent Mumbai-400066. (Org.Plaintiff) _______ Mr.Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Pankaj Thatte for Appellant. Mr.Rohan Cama with Mr.Darshit Jain, Mr.Amar Khanna for Respondent no.1. _______ CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J. DATE : 21st September 2026 P.C. 1. This Appeal from Order has been filed taking exception to the Order dated 10th December 2025 passed by learned Trial Judge in Notice of Motion No.135 of 2025 in Suit No.3991 of 2024 whereby the Trial Judge had directed the Appellant-original Defendant no.2 to execute a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (`PAA Agreement’) in favour of Respondent no.1/original Plaintiff in terms of development agreement and in terms of provisions under clause (b)(i) to (iii) of Section 4 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulations of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963 within one month from the date of passing of the said order M.S.Thatte MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.09.21 17:17:31 +0530 2 of 4 11.AO.736.2026.DOC dated 10th December 2025. The operative part of the order dated 10th December 2025 passed on Notice of Motion No.135 of 2025 is reproduced below : “1. Notice of Motion No.135 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (e). 2. Defendants to execute permanent alternate accommodation agreement within a month of the order in favour of the plaintiff in terms of development agreement and in terms of provisions under clause (b)(i) to (iii) of Section 4 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulations of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963. 3. In view of aforesaid directions the plaintiff to explain why the suit shall not be disposed off as it has become infructuous.” 2. As per Clause-2 of the operative part, the Defendant no.2 was to execute PAA Agreement within a period of one month from the date of the said order and further the Trial Court has also held that the Plaintiff to explain why the suit should not be disposed of as it has become infructuous. It is also seen that at paragraph no.14 of the order dated 10th December 2025, , both the parties have agreed to the position that the PAA Agreement has to be executed in respect of the flat admeasuring 521 sq.ft. However, in respect of the terrace area admeasuring 1,201 sq.ft, in the old building, there seems to be dispute between the parties. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr.Shaikh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Appellant has submitted that considering the relief granted under the order dated 10th December 2025, the Defendant no.2 is willing to execute the PAA Agreement in respect of 521 sq.ft area of flat. However, he has vehemently submitted that considering that this relief has already been granted, nothing survives in the present suit and the suit should be disposed of as infructuous, as held by the Trial Curt in its order dated 10th December 2025. M.S.Thatte 3 of 4 11.AO.736.2026.DOC 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent no.1 Mr.Cama has submitted that a Review Petition has been preferred against the order dated 10th December 2025, particularly in respect of contentious issue of terrace area of 1,201 sq.ft. He further submitted that as far as execution of PAA Agreement for the flat admeasuring 521 sq.ft is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties and his client is willing to execute PAA Agreement for 521 sq.ft flat. He also submitted that the Review Petition is scheduled for hearing before the Trial Court on 19th October 2026. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and without delving into the merits of the case and upon perusal of the order dated 10th December 2025, this Court is of the view that the PAA Agreement be executed considering that both the parties are at ad idem on this issue. Accordingly this Appeal from Order can be disposed of in the following term : ORDER (i) The Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement be executed between the Appellant and Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of this order; (ii) The learned Trial Court to consider and decide whether Suit No.3991 of 2024 survives and has become infructuous, particularly in view of clause-3 of its order dated 10th December 2025, where Plaintiff was called upon to explain as to why the suit shall not be disposed off as it has become infructuous, and take such decision preferably within a period of four weeks from today i.e. 19th October 2026; M.S.Thatte 4 of 4 11.AO.736.2026.DOC (iii) The Trial Court shall also on the said date consider and decide the Review Petition which is listed on 19th October 2026, along with Suit No.3991 of 2024; (iv) All contentions of the parties in respect of the aforesaid are expressly kept open; (v) Appeal from Order stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs; (vi) Interim Application No.5774 of 2026 does not survive and stands disposed of as such. (AARTI SATHE, J.) M.S.Thatte