- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2722 OF 2007 Sameer H. Thakkar & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Amrutlal Prabhudas & Ors. Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gauri Godse, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. Vaibhav Patankar h/f Mr. R. S. Apte, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 PC . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. perused the impugned orders. 3. The courts below have held that prima-facie the Agreement based upon which the construction had commenced, had been terminated. Further, the contention that despite such termination, the first respondent accepted the flat and thus, the benefit under the Agreement has also been considered. The - 2 - lower appellate court while agreeing with the trial Court has held that Clause 10, so also the agreement, if read as a whole in the light of the pleadings, discloses that there are absolutely no particulars about the so called third party rights already created. The flat is offered by one Nityanand Associates with regard to whom, it has been mentioned that there is an Agreement dated 6th February 2002 with these Associates, in which not only the original Defendant nos. 1 and 2, but one Ramesh Mota are shown to be the partners. In such circumstances, the identity of the said Nityanand Associates with that of the original defendants and the nexus between prior agreement and the same is something which will have to be gone into at the trial. Prima-facie when the cancellation is not disputed, then, the injunction as granted by the courts below cannot be said to be vitiated by improper, arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretionary powers. No interference is necessary under Art. 227 of the Constitution of india. Writ petition is dismissed. The above observations are tentative and prima-facie and shall not influence the court while deciding the suit. Sd/- [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J.]