: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.787 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.987 OF 2009 Nirmal Ayur Life Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellants V/s. Bajaj Overseas Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondent Mr. Girish Godbole with Mr. Mehul Shah and Mr. Hemang Jariwala i/b. Auroma Law for the Appellants. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mr. Aumkar Joshi for Respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Dewal i/b. Mr. K.V. Reddy for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order arises from the order dated 18th December, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane below Exhibit No.5 in Special Civil Suit No.391 of 2008. By this order, the application for interim relief filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. According to the plaintiffs, they have been induced into issuing a letter on 17th January, 2008 to the Advocate of M/s. : 2 : Taj Developers by defendant No.1. This letter is to the effect that the plaintiffs were not concerned with Plot No.1 which was mentioned in the public notice issued on 9th January, 2008. They have further stated in the letter that they had no objection to the sale of Plot No.1 to M/s. Taj Developers. 2. The trial Court has refused the injunction on the ground that this letter dated 17th January, 2008 had been issued by the plaintiffs indicating that they were not concerned with Plot No.1. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants- plaintiffs that it was only because there was a misrepresentation to the plaintiffs that if such a letter was issued, the defendant No.1 would convey the property to them. This submission is without merit. It is highly unlikely that plaintiffs i.e. corporate body would issue such a letter indicating that it does have anything to do with Plot No.1, without being aware of its consequences. : 3 : 4. The other submission raised on behalf of the appellants is that the very fact that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have by their Advocate’s letter sought clarification about the plaintiffs stand regarding the plots indicates that defendant Nos.2 and 3 were aware of the transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. This submission also cannot be accepted as, prima facie, a perusal of that letter indicates that the clarification was sought in respect of the other plots and not Plot No.1. 5. The Appeal from Order is dismissed. 6. In view of the above, Civil Application No.987 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. .......