1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8757 OF 2009 Vishwakarma Bidikamgar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit .. Petitioner. Vs. Laxmi Rajaram Gundka & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.P.K.Dhakepalkar, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.P.J.Das for the petitioner. Mr.S.P.Thorat for respondent nos.1 to 11. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the co-operative appellate court by which the appeal from order filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed and the order dated 13.1.2009 passed on the application at Exhibit-5 in dispute No.274 of 2008 by the co-operative court has been set aside. While doing so the appellate court in paragraph 3 of the judgment has made the following observations: “In my opinion even though the development agreement is cancelled, as per decision of the General Body meeting dt.1/12/2008, appellants are still entitled to have interim relief in their favour till decision of the dispute, because they have made out prima facie case to prove that the plots were 2 allotted to them by MHADA and the same are in their actual possession. They are holding share certificates in respect of the respective plots and their names are in the list of members annexed to the lease deed at Exh.3(8). They hold possession slip Exh.3/3 and got sanctioned the building plans from the P.M.C. and the P.M.C. issued commencement certificate in their favour which is at Exh.3/5 and commencement letter dt.21/4/2008 issued by the P.M.C. and permission is granted to them for construction. Since they have proved strong prima facie case, it was necessary on the part of trial court to grant interim reliefs, so that they can put construction on their respective plots and there should not be any obstruction from the respondents disturbing their possession and further creating any third party right and interest in respect of their plots. I find from the impugned order that most of the findings of the trial Court goes in favour of the appellants. However, the trial court just considering that the development agreement and power of attorney executed in favour of respondent no.3 and 4 is cancelled as per resolution of Special General Body meeting dt. 1/12/2008, rejected the interim reliefs which in fact ought to have been granted in favour of the appellants. “ 3. Mr.Dhakepalkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner- society submits that if the petitioners are allowed to complete the construction, the society will not be able to maintain 3 uniformity in respect of construction of flats for other members of the society. Mr.Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that construction of the flats of respondent nos.1 to 11 is going on in full swing and 3-4 flats are almost over. Keeping that in view I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the appellate court. However, the construction made by respondent nos.1 to 11 will be subject to outcome of the dispute. It is also open to the petitioner-society to institute appropriate proceeding, as may be advised, for appropriate relief, if they so desire. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)