- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 330 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 400 OF 2009 Chandrakant Daji Parab & Ors. ... Appellants Vs. Ramchandra Amrut Chawan & Ors ... Respondents Mr. G. S. Godbole with Mr. S. S. Kanetkar, for appellants. Mr. Shyam Mehta i/b Mr. Satyendra Kumar for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. P. P. Chavan i/b M/s. Madekar & Co. for respondent No. 72. Mrs. K. K. Soraan, for respondents-BMC. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JUNE 25, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. This appeal takes exception to the order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay dated 18th February 2009 below Notice of Motion (Exhibit 2), in L.C. Suit No. 2648 of 2008, whereby injunction is granted against the present appellants/original defendant Nos. 1 to 5, in terms of prayer Clause (c). - 2 - 2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 71 filed suit for declaration that they are entitled to redevelop the suit property in accordance with the sanctioned plan and for that purpose, they are entitled to construct the transit camp, in accordance with sanctioned plan. Permanent injunction was also claimed against the present appellants, restraining them from obstructing construction of the rehab buildings and the transit camp. The respondent Nos. 1 to 71 also filed abovesaid Notice of Motion for temporary injunction, in terms of permanent injunction claimed in the suit. By the impugned order, the interim injunction is granted against the present appellants. 3. Initially there were six Chawls. The appellants/original defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were resident of Chawl No. 2 and 3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 71 /original plaintiffs are resident of Chawl Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6. It is not disputed that Chawl Nos. 2 and 3 are already demolished and in its place new buildings are constructed i.e. 72 and 50 Tenement. So far as Chawl Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, the said property is under development and for that purpose, the respondent Nos. 1 to 71 appointed the Developer- respondent No.72. The plans are prepared and got sanctioned from respondent No. 73-Municipal Corporation and for the purpose of redevelopment, construction of the transit camp is started at the site. 4. The appellants are obstructing construction of transit camp on three grounds, viz. (i) permission is required to be - 3 - revalidated after every six months and respondents have not got the same revalidated; (ii) the distance between the buildings known as 72 and 50 Tenement and proposed transit camp is less than 2 mt.; and (iii) suit came to be filed against the appellants in the representative capacity, however, no leave as contemplated under Order 1, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code is obtained. The learned trial Judge after hearing the learned counsel appearing for respective parties, over-ruled the objections and granted temporary injunction, as claimed by respondent Nos. 1 to 71. 5. So far as first objection, namely re-validating permission is concerned, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, in as much as the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 71 produced on record re- validating permissions till 4th of October, 2009. These permissions are also perused by the learned counsel for the appellants and thereafter he has conceded this point. 6. The next objection is about distance between a building known as 72 and 50 Tenement and the proposed transit camp. Relevant Regulation 6.11 of Appendix-IV of the Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 1991 is applicable to the present case, which reads as under- “6.11 Front and marginal open spaces--- For buildings having height upto 24 mt. in the rehab component or composite building, the front and marginal open space shall be 1.5 mt. For these buildings. - 4 - Provided however, that in case of buildings having height more than 24 mt., the minimum marginal open space shall be 6.0 mt. Or as may be prescribed by CFO” 7. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the distance between 70 and 50 Tenement and proposed transit camp is more than 1.5 mt. In any case the transit camps are being constructed for temporary purpose and after completion of rehab building, the same will be demolished and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the appellants, and therefore, in such circumstances, I do not find substance in second objection of the appellants. 8. So far as third objection is concerned, it is specific case of the respondents/plaintiffs that appellants/original defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are obstructing construction of the temporary transit camp and therefore, they are made party to the proceeding. Thus, there is no need of filing any representative suit by the respondents/plaintiffs. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the present appeal, Civil Application No. 400 of 2009 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]