1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1073 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1321 OF 2009 Ganpat Govind Pawashe & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. M/s. Malhar Construction Co. & Ors. .. Respondents .... Mr. D. S. Mhaispurker for the Appellants. Mrs. Pratibha Borade h/f. Mr. A. S. Rao for Respondent Nos. 8 & 9. .... CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATE : JUNE 29, 2010. P.C. This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan whereby he rejected the Appellant’s application at Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 2009 for an injunction to restrain defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from entering on the property bearing survey No.40 which is owned by the plaintiffs and other co-owners as joint family property. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one Govind Shankar Pawashe. Alongwith 11 others they have executed an agreement on 12th 2 April, 2002 in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 7 for development of the property by respondent No.1 M/s. Malhar Construction whereby the owners were to receive 30 % of the constructed portion. Respondent No. 1 to 7 were to carry out the construction within a period of 40 months. This period has expired on 30th November, 2007. The plaintiffs claimed to have given notice to the defendants and then filed a suit. They have prayed for injunction by the application Exhibit 5, to restrain further development in the property till the decision of this suit. The learned trial Judge rejected this application holding that the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts particularly that there had been an oral partition effected amongst the co-owners of the suit property. This fact had been stated by them in the reply filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 353 of 2002 filed by M/s. Surya Developers. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the recital about an oral partition in paragraph 7(c) of their written statement in R.C.S. No. 453 of 2002 did not, in fact, mean to convey that there is a partition, since the parties had not acted upon any such oral partition. It is curious that the agreement 3 dated 12th April, 2002, which preceded filing of written statement filed on 7th December, 2002, is not referred to in the written statement filed in that other suit. This could be gone into at the trial. 3. The learned Trial Judge rightly refused the relief of injunction, since such a relief would stop development of the property for which the respondents must have spent a fortune. Without joining all the parties to the agreement, the Appellants could not have approached the trial Court. The learned counsel for the Appellants states that subsequently some of the signatories to the Agreement have been joined. The persons who have signed the agreement are 20 in number and if there is a dispute amongst those 20 person that can not be resolved by filing a suit against the developer and claiming an injunction against the developer. 4. The impugned order does not show that it was perverse in nature and there is no ground for interference. The learned trial Judge rightly refused the injunction. 5. The Appeal is, therefore, disposed of. 4 6. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.1321 of 2009 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. [ R. C. CHAVAN, J. ]