=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.140 NO.140 NO.140 OF 2009 OF 2009 OF 2009 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.3702 OF 2003 MOTION NO.3702 OF 2003 MOTION NO.3702 OF 2003 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.3961 NO.3961 NO.3961 OF 2003 OF 2003 OF 2003 Shri Chandru T. Tolani ...Appellant v/s Sai Amrat Co-op.Hsg.Ltd. and ors. ...Respondents Mr Milind Sathe, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mukul Tally, Mr Pramod Bhosale and Mr Rakesh Misar i/b M/s S. Mahomedbhai and Co. for Appellant. Mr G.G. Bhandary i/b M/s Bhandary and Bhandary for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 31ST MARCH 2009 31ST MARCH 2009 31ST MARCH 2009 =2= P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is a builder who had admittedly given an undertaking before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 26th May 2000 that he will execute conveyance in favour of the Society within four months. He had also undertaken that he will not undertake any further construction unless he conveys the property to the Society. Admittedly, the builder - appellant has committed breach of this undertaking. In the civil suit, sanction to the building plans granted by the Corporation is under challenge. In view of the solemn undertaking given by the appellant, prima facie the Corporation should not have sanctioned his building plans unless he abides by his own undertaking or gets himself relieved from the said undertaking. The learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that the undertaking given by the appellant under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963 is not relevant while considering the building plans. In our opinion, the submission has no substance because building plans are to be sanctioned by the Corporation in accordance with law. If owner of the property by giving undertaking to the authority disentitles himself to do something which he is otherwise entitled to do, in =3= our opinion, that circumstance is relevant while sanctioning building plans by the Corporation. The Corporation has sanctioned building plans illegally and therefore if now the appellant is permitted to carry out construction, he will not only carry out construction but create third party rights and suit will become infructuous. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in granting temporary injunction. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for appellant on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in appeal No.297 of 2008 (M/s Manratna Developers v/s Megh Ratan C.H.S. Ltd. and ors.) decided on 23rd October 2008. In our opinion, in the face of the clear undertaking given by the appellant before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to which we have made a reference above, whatever is said in that judgment is not relevant for deciding this appeal. Appeal is rejected with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( A.A. SAYED J.)