- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 457 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 551 OF 2009 Tukaram Laxman Golande ... Appellant Vs. Sambhaji M. Hajare & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. T. D. Deshmukh, for appellant. Mr. V. P. Savant, for respondent Nos. 7 & 8. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JULY 6, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 and 8. The appellant who is original plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 10th May 2006, alleged executed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in his favour. In this suit he filed application for temporary injunction, restraining respondent Nos. 7 and 8 from carrying out construction activities in the suit property and also from creating any third party interest. Said application was rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 2. There is no dispute that suit land admeasuring 77.5 R from survey No. 250 belongs to one Ganpat. Said Ganpat has one son namely respondent No. 5 Madhukar and two daughters viz. respondent No. 6 Mrs. Satyabhama Pawar and one Kamla. Said - 2 - Kamla predeceased Ganpat. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are legal hears of deceased Kamla. The case of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 is that deceased Ganpat entered into a development agreement with them on 3rd August, 1997 and this development agreement after the death of Ganpat was confirmed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as well as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 19th August 2007 and 19th December 2007 respectively. 3. The appellants have not challenged development agreement dated 3rd August 1997 executed by deceased Ganpat with respondent Nos. 7 and 8. It is not disputed that after execution of confirmation deed by the respondent Nos. 5 to 6 and respondent Nos. 1 to 4, respondent No. 7 & 8 have commenced construction and it is at the stage of completion. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, prejudice would be caused to respondent Nos. 7 and 8, if the interim injunction as claimed by the appellant is granted in his favour. On the contrary, if ultimately appellant/plaintiff succeeds, he can be awarded damages. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, in my opinion no case for interference is made out. Appeal is therefore dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application No. 551 of 2009 does not survive for consideration and the said is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]