: 1 : nms-4367-07-c=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4367 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 2251 OF 2007 Tulsi Tower Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .. Plaintiffs v/s. Jyotsna Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants ......... Mr. Omprakash Pandey i/by M/s. Pandey & Co. for the plaintiffs Mr. Mohan Naik with Neeta Solanki i/by Kiran Jain & Co. for defendant no.3 in support of NMS 4367/07. Ms. S.P. Trivedi i/by S.J. Botlawar for defendant no.1 None for defendant no.2 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rejoinder tendered by learned Counsel for defendant no.3 is taken on record. This motion is taken out for an order of injunction restraining plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 from entering into any arrangement so as to deprive defendant no.3 of his ownership rights in regard to the property described in prayer clause (a). More or less, same prayer is sought in terms of prayer clause (b). : 2 : nms-4367-07-c=.sxw 2. The plaintiffs Co-operative society has instituted this suit against defendant nos. 1 and 2 who are styled as developers for calling upon them to perform their part of the contract in accordance with the terms of agreement entered into with the respective flat purchaser. The present defendant no.3 came to be joined on account of chamber summons taken out by it. 3. Present defendant no.3 claims to be the owner of the land in question on which the building of the co-operative society is standing. According to defendant no.3 in the record of rights, defendant no.3 is shown as the land owner. 4. Defendant no.3 apprehends that plaintiffs and defendant no.1 would enter into an arrangement so as to deprive defendant no.3 of its rights in regard to land in question. If plaintiffs have approached this Court with a positive case that the developers as well as land owner whosoever have to perform their part of the agreement so as to confer proper title on the Co-operative society, without consent of the owner of the land in question, no title can be conferred upon the plaintiffs. If the present defendant no.3 claims to be the owner of land in question, undoubtedly, without their consent no ownership : 3 : nms-4367-07-c=.sxw right would get conferred on the plaintiffs. Even if some arrangement is arrived at between plaintiffs and defendant no.1 so as to deal with the land in question and deprive of defendant no.3 of its ownership rights, it will be open for defendant no.3 to challenge the said document by taking out appropriate proceedings. An injunction as envisaged in prayer clauses (a) and (b) cannot be granted at this stage. In view of the above, notice of motion is required to be dismissed. It is clarified that observations made in this notice of motion shall be treated as restricted to the pleadings arising in this suit. 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, notice of motion is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)