: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1122 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.933 OF 2008 Seven Elevan Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. V.B. Naik i/b. Mr. S.D. Patil for the Applicants. Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi i/b. Chaturvedi & Associates for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.P. Sawant i/b. M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicants have sought a stay of the execution of the judgment and order dated 17th May, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, allowing the injunction application at Exhibit-5. 2. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the applicants-defendants is that a blanket : 2 : injunction should not have been granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. He submits that this is specially so in view of the fact that the plaintiffs had not sought an injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 16 in a Suit filed by them for specific performance of the agreement dated 20th April, 1994. He submits that the plaintiffs had filed another Suit for cancellation of the agreement which the defendant Nos.1 to 7 had executed with defendant Nos.16 and 17. He submits that the plaintiffs had not cared to obtain any injunction in the aforesaid two Suits being Special Civil Suit Nos.752 of 2006 and 753 of 2006. According to the learned Advocate, the defendants terminated the agreement with the plaintiffs after which the Development Agreement had been executed in favour of defendant Nos.16 and 17. The TDR had been released by the respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation on 30th November, 2007, which the appellants wish to utilize. The learned Counsel submits that by injuncting the applicants from using the TDR, the plaintiffs have managed to secure for themselves in the present Suit, an : 3 : injunction which they could not obtain in the earlier Suits filed by them. 3. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.2- plaintiffs submits that the property must be protected i.e. the TDR/DRC must be protected as the applicants have no right to use the same. He submits that defendant Nos.1 to 15 had, in fact, sold the property to the plaintiffs and all that remained was to execute the Conveyance. He submits that the TDR released by the Municipal Corporation can therefore be utilized only by the plaintiffs. 4. It appears from the agreement executed by the defendants Nos.1 to 15 in favour of the plaintiffs that the agreement is, prima facie, for development of the property and not for sale of the property. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 can well be compensated in case the suit is decreed. 5. In these circumstances, the interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is granted. : 4 : 6. The learned Advocate for respondent No.2 seeks a stay of this order for a period of four weeks from today. The learned Counsel for the applicants opposes the same. 7. In these circumstances, the present order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today. .......