: 1 : caw.2519.2010.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2519 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3172 OF 2008 Shri Yeshwant Vilasrao Shinde ... Applicant V/s. Youth Development Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kolhapur & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Dilip Bodake for Applicant Mr.Amit Borkar for Respondent No.1 Mr.S.S. Shah for Resp. Nos.2 & 3 Mr.A.M. Kulkarni for resp. No.4 Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP, for Respondent No.5 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JUNE 9, 2011. P.C.: 1.This civil application is taken out by the applicant who is not a party to the original writ Petition nor to the revisional proceedings from which the present writ petition arises. The bank is aggrieved by an order passed in the revisional proceedings. While impugning it, it has pointed out several aspects which led to the writ petition being admitted and interim order being granted. 2.It is the case of the applicants that they have some rights in the property by virtue of an agreement with respondent No.3 who are styled as original owners i.e. a registered development agreement dated 22.11.2004 in respect of 1 : 2 : caw.2519.2010.sxw hectare 20 ares out of the survey No.879. The applicants claim development rights and also rely on a power of attorney. They submit that by virtue of interim orders restraining the original respondent Nos.1 and 2 from alienating, creating third party rights or in any way dealing with the property in question, they are prejudiced. They have pointed as to how their rights are independent and they had no privity of contract with the Bank. However, at the same time they have tried to assert in the civil application that the original respondent Nos.1 & 2 are not sureties or guarantors to the loan obtained by respondent No.4. There is no recovery certificate obtained against respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3.To my mind, while asserting their own rights in the immovable property, it will not be possible for the applicants to state in the same breath about the liability of the other parties. In such circumstances, this civil application is totally misconceived and not maintainable. The remedy of the applicants is elsewhere and if they are trying to enforce their rights under the development agreement nothing prevents them from so asserting their rights by instituting appropriate proceedings before a competent Court and claiming the reliefs - interim as well as final. 4.Leaving open all remedies, pleas and contentions, this application is disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)