1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 821 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 821 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 821 OF 2007 Shri Daulat Pandharinath Pingale ..Appellant (Orig.Deft.No.1) Versus Shri Maheshkumar Ganor Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Shriram S.Kulkarni,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Rameshwar N.Gite, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 25th February,2008. DATE: 25th February,2008. DATE: 25th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present appellant is the original defendant 2 No.1 and owner of the suit land admeasuring 6 Ares out of Survey No.311/2 admeasuring 2 Hectares & 8 Ares situated at Village Makhamalabad within the local limits of Nashik Municipal Corporation. On 16.7.2004, a development agreement took place between the appellant and the respondent No.1 and that development agreement was executed and duly registered. The consideration amount was agreed to be Rs.1,45,000/- and the appellant received that consideration amount at the time of execution of the agreement. By that development agreement, the appellant granted rights of development and also to dispose of the flats/houses to be constructed on that land to the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Not only this, the appellant also executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the respondent No.1 about the said rights. As per the said agreement, the respondent No.1 was to take steps to secure permission for non-agricultural use of the land, go get lay-out of the land sanctioned and to obtain necessary permission for construction on the said land from the Municipal Corporation. The respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.166 of 2007 against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contending that they were obstructing in his possession and in the development work. By an Application Exhibit 5, he sought temporary injunction to restrain them from 3 causing any interference in the development work. 3. The appellant, who is defendant No.1, contested the application and, according to him, the said suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had not performed his part of the contract and, therefore, he is not entitled to get such injunction. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order on 21.8.2007 restraining the defendants from obstructing the development work in pursuance of the agreement dated 16.7.2004 till the disposal of the suit. That order is challenged in the present Appeal by the original defendant no.1. 4. ON perusal of the copies of the relevant documents and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, there is no dispute that the present appellant is the original owner of the suit land and he had entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 granting the development rights over the said land. The consideration for assignment of these rights was fixed at Rs.1,45,000/- and whole of that amount has been received by the appellant. He has nothing more to receive either in cash or in the form of any construction or structure under the said agreement. As per the said agreement, respondent No.1, as the 4 developer, has to secure permission for non-agricultural use of the land, he has also to get sanction to the lay-out plan which was already submitted and he has to make construction only after obtaining necessary sanction to the plan from the Municipal Corporation. Except these three conditions, there is nothing more which is required to be done for development of the land. It also appears that the present appellant had executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the said development rights. 5. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1, on taking instructions from respondent No.1 who is present before the Court, makes a statement that respondent No.1 shall not carry out any development work on the land permission for non-agricultural use, sanction to the lay-out plan and sanction from the Municipal Corporation for construction of the building on the said land. In view of this statement, in fact, nothing remains on which the appellant can argue the case. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant however, contended that the respondent NO.1-plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction and not for specific performance 5 of the agreement and the suit is not maintainable. At this stage, I am unable to accept this contention, particularly because not only the agreement is executed, but is also duly registered and the rights of development and sale of the houses to be constructed on wthat property are already assigned to respondent No.1. In view of the fact that the appellant has received full consideration, he cannot even revoke the power of attorney. In view of this, contention of the appellant that he has terminated the contract cannot be accepted at this stage. Taking into consideration the circumstances noted above, I find no substance in the present Appeal. 7. In the result, subject to the statements made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, referred to above, the Appeal stands dismissed. 8. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, the Civil Application No.1142 of 2007 does not survive and stands disposed of. 6 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)