ash 1 56ao-124.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 124 OF 2011 Suresh D. Singh & Anr. .. Appellants Vs Hasmukh Rajmal Hirani & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri V.Y. Sanglikar for the Appellants. Shri Rishabh Shah & Vachan Bodke i/by M/s.Chitnis Vaithy & Co for the Respondent No.1. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 6TH APRIL, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellants who are the original Defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The challenge in this Appeal is to the order of interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in a suit filed by the 1st Respondent. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus:- “Notice of Motion is allowed. The defendants, their respective agents, servants and all other persons claiming through and under them, are hereby restrained, by issuing temporary injunction, from creating obstruction in the development of the land of Building No.8, situated on C.T.S. No.11 (Part), admeasuring 784.12 sq. meters, till disposal of the suit. Notice of Motion stands disposed of accordingly.” ash 2 56ao-124.11 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants does not dispute that the Appellants have no right in respect of the suit property in respect of which the impugned order of injunction has been passed. He submitted that under the guise of carrying on work of development, the 1st Respondent has demolished a structure of the Appellants which was a part of the property in respect of which there is no development agreement with the 1st Respondent. He submitted that even the Society which has granted development agreement to the 1st Respondent is not a party to the suit. He, therefore, submitted that looking to the conduct of the 1st Respondent of demolishing the shop of the Appellants, the Trial Court ought not to have granted equitable relief. 3. I have considered the submissions. There is no dispute that the Appellants have no right in respect of the property which is described in the impugned order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court. It is, therefore, obvious that the Appellants cannot obstruct the work of development in the said property as they are not concerned with the said property. If a premises of the Appellants has been unauthorisedly demolished by the 1st Respondent, it is for the Appellants to take appropriate action in that behalf in accordance with law. In fact, the Trial Court in paragraph 10 of the impugned order recorded that the shop has been allegedly demolished on 3rd October, 2009 and no action has been taken by the Appellants against the 1st ash 3 56ao-124.11 Respondent. 4. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court. It is obvious that the said order will not prevent the Appellants from taking out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in respect of the shop premises which was allegedly demolished by the 1st Respondent. 5. Subject to what is observed above, there is no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 6. Civil Application No. 188 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )