IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8333 OF 2009 Narendra Shivaji Suryawanshi & Anr. ..... ..... ...Petitioners V/s Ulhas Shivaji Suryawanshi & Ors. ..... ..... .Respondents. Mr.Ashok B. Tajane, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.V.A.Shastry, Adv. for the Respondents 1 to 3. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for MHADA. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 3rd December, 2009. PC: The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the original plaintiffs who instituted a suit for declaration and injunction against the present petitioner who is defendant No.1 and against defendant No.2-MHADA. The declaration sought is to the effect that the entering of the name of defendant No.1 in record of suit property in the records of defendant No.2 be quashed and set aside. The suit land was allotted to the father of the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 as flood affected person. During the life time of father it is the case of the plaintiff that the present petitioner/defendant No.1 has illegally procured NOC from the father and used the same for recording the suit property in his name. It is also the case of plaintiffs that father during his life time has executed a will and under the said will all the children are given equal share in the suit property. The property has been transferred in the name of the present petitioner on the basis of notarized NOC purportedly given by father in favour of the petitioner the legality of which is the subject matter of the suit. Learned counsel appearing for MHADA has 1 submitted that the officer who executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner was not even authorized to do so. If that be so, then prima facie plaintiffs are justified in alleging that recording of name of petitioner as title holder of the suit property in MHADA records was a collusive act on the part of present petitioner and MHADA officers. A further statement is made that MHADA has ordered an inquiry into some of dubious transactions during that period. Be that as it may, in the above set of facts both courts below have recorded finding that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie good case for grant of injunction. The petitioner proposes to erect a building on the suit property and if injunction is not granted it is obvious that the plaintiffs would be put to suffer undue hardship besides irreparable loss. After construction is raised the petitioner would proceed to dispose of the same. The Courts below have restrained the present petitioner from raising the construction at the site. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted by inviting my attention to photograph of the site that upto plinth level construction is complete. If that be so, then apprehension of the plaintiffs stands substantiated. Perused the impugned order. Same does not call for interference. However having regard to the nature of controversy and the investment made by the petitioner by raising money by way of loan it would be in the interest of justice to direct expeditious disposal of the suit. In the result though the petitioner is dismissed trial court is directed to make an endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today on its own merit without being influenced by this order. 30.12.2009. 2