-: 1 :- AO- 229/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 229 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPL. NO. 337 OF 2011 Muktaji Sakharam Gunjal. ...Appellant. Versus Indubai Pundalik Khode & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. M. S. Karnik for the appellant. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : June 17, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. M. S. Karnik, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. The respondents filed special civil suit for cancellation of development agreement and power of attorney executed by them in favour of the appellant. In the said suit, an application at Exhibit-5 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for restraining the appellant by an order of temporary injunction from creating third party interest in the suit property. This application is granted by the impugned order and therefore the present appeal. 2. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the terms srp -: 2 :- AO- 229/11 and conditions of the development agreement are not complied with by the appellant. Therefore, the respondents have prayed for reliefs of cancellation of agreement alongwith power of attorney executed in favour of the appellant. 3. Mr. M. S. Karnik, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the total consideration for the development agreement was Rs.75 lacs and out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.42 lacs is already paid to the respondents– plaintiffs. He also submitted that already third party rights are created by the appellant prior to the passing of impugned order. 4. The respondents are the owners of the suit property. The appellant claims development rights by virtue of development agreement dated 29.10.2007. However, the respondent-claims cancellation of this agreement for breach of terms and conditions on the part of the appellant. This dispute will have to be decided at the time of final hearing of suit after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. Therefore, during the pendency of the suit, rights of the respondents are required to be protected. Similar view is taken by the learned trial Judge. I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. -: 3 :- AO- 229/11 5. Needless to mention that the impugned order will not affect the third party rights created by the appellant prior to the passing of impugned order. 6. In view of the disposal of appeal, nothing survives for consideration in the C. A. No. 337 of 2011 and same is also disposed of. (Ranjit More, J.)