IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.843 OF 2008 Shri Chandrakant Madhavrao Shirole & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. M/s.Sai Errectors & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for Petitioners. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar with Mr.P.S.Dani for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.G.Ketkar for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 27, 2009. JANUARY 27, 2009. JANUARY 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The principal grievance of the Petitioners is that the Respondent No.1/Developer without providing parking space in Plot No.4, which was obligatory in terms of Clause (8) of the Agreement dated 19th May 2003, has completed the construction : 2 : activity on the said plot in breach of the said Agreement. The Respondent No.1 in Para 6 of the affidavit filed before this Court has in no uncertain terms stated that Respondent No.1 shall erect mechanical rotary parking as may be permissible by the Pune Municipal Corporation in Plot No.4 itself; and that they shall not ask for completion certificate of the remaining floors unless the parking is completely provided as per the sanction plan. The statement so made in Para 6 of the affidavit dated 11th August 2008 will have to be accepted. In that case, the grievance and/or apprehension of the Petitioners that the parking will be provided in area other than the plot No.4 by the Respondent No.1/Developer stands addressed. 3. The next grievance of the Petitioners that although the Corporation has, in principal, indicated that mechanical rotary mechanical parking lot can be allowed to be erected on Plot No.4 by the Respondent No.1/Developer, that would be illegal. That is a matter which will have to be addressed in appropriate proceedings to be resorted to by the Petitioners in that behalf. It is not : 3 : necessary to address that question in the present Petition which is limited to seeking injunction against the Respondent No.1/Developer on the assertion that the Respondent No.1/Developer was likely to provide parking space in area other than Plot No.4. 4. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of on the above terms. 5. All question with regard to the legality or otherwise of arrangement of providing mechanical rotary parking in Plot No.4 are left open to be considered in appropriate proceedings. 6. It is not necessary to address the grievance made at the instance of Respondent No.1/Developer that the Petitioners have had created untoward situation at the site; having regard to the assurance given by the Petitioners through their Counsel that the Petitioners shall not create any such situation, while denying the allegation of the Respondent No.1 contained in affidavit of Shivkumar Tipanna Nelge dated 11th : 4 : August 2008. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.