* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 919 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1107 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 919 OF 2008 M/s.Ganga Vihar `A' Co-operative Housing Soc.Ltd .....Appellants V/s. Mr.Abhinna Sunder Mohanty & Ors. ......Respondents Shri.Rajendra Prasad Ojha, adv.for appellants. Mr.R.A.Thorat, adv.for respondents no.1 and 2. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 23 rd September, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Appeal arises out of interim order dated 14th July, 2008 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court on the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant rejecting the relief for interim injunction. 2. The dispute in the present appeal concerns stilt parking spaces A-5 and A-6 situate underneath the building of Ganga Vihar-A, Co-operative Housing, * 2 * Society Ltd. The builder and developer, respondent no.3 commenced the work of construction of building in January, 2002. The predecessor in title of respondent no.5 alloted the disputed parking spaces to respondents no.1 and 2 respectively vide allotment letter dated 16th October, 2002. On 24th June, 2003 society by name of `Ganga Vihar Co-operative Housing Society' came to be registered. The building constructed by the builder has two wings, ' A' and 'B'. It appears that subsequently i.e. on 18th January, 2006, separate societies came to be registered by name Ganga Vihar `A' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd ' and `Ganga Vihar `B' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd'. After the separate registrations, appellant no.1 alloted the disputed car parking space by its resolution dated 4th May, 2008 to two of its members who are not made parties to the suit. 3. It is alleged in the plaint that the members of the appellant have always been parking their cars in the disputed car parking space and whenever the car parking space was empty, respondents no.1 and 2 would park their cars therein. This is disputed by the respondents, who contend as already mentioned above that the car parking space had been alloted to respondents no.1 and 2 by the allotment letter dated 16th October, 2002. The Learned Judge while rejecting the Notice of Motion has observed that the cause of action to agitate about the user of car parking spaces by respondents no.1 and 2 has infact arisen in favour of the persons to whom the appellants have made allotments of the same. They * 3 * would be the persons aggrieved by the alleged acts of respondents no.1 and 2 and not the appellants. Mr.Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant who has been in the management of affairs of the society and the building can make allotment of parking spaces to any of its members. According to him, the allottees of parking spaces may change, however, the right of society will be constant. Mr.Ojha will not be wholly right in saying that the society alone can agitate the cause. This is because by making the allotment in favour of two of its members, the appellant has created a right in their favour of using the car parking spaces and the alleged obstruction by respondents no.1 and 2, relates to user of the car parking spaces. The Learned Judge has rightly observed that the allottees ought to have been joined atleast as formal parties to the suit. 4. It is undisputed position, that the property is yet to be conveyed to both the societies. In these circumstances, and particularly since allotment in favour of respondents no.1 and 2 was made since prior to the appellant society came into existence, these respondents cannot be prevented from enjoying the property by passing orders at the interim stage. In these circumstances, the Learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil court rejected the application for interim reliefs. I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the same does not require any interference. 5. Mr.Ojha relies upon a decision of our High Court in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand P.Ltd V/s. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd * 4 * reported in 2008(3)Bom.C.R.page 727, and submits that, the allotment of parking space by a builder to an outsider is illlegal. There can be no dispute as regards the legal proposition. However, in the instant case looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court will have to consider at the time of final hearing, whether respondents no.1 and 2 can be said to be total outsiders in whose favour there could not have been allotment of parking space. 6. The Appeal from order is dismissed in limine. With the dismissal of the Appeal from order, the Civil Application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]