1 AO-1241-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1241 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1534 OF 2010 M/s. Unnathi Associates ... Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) Vs. M/s. Sadhana Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents (Orig. defendants) Mr. N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Counsel, i/b. Mr. Anish Wadia,Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr. K.K.Malpathak,Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 27th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff, who claims to have entered into an agreement with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for development of the suit land and, according to him, as part of consideration he had also paid amount of Rs. 39,27,500/- to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 during the period from August to December 2005. As the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 backed out from the agreement, the present appellant filed Special Civil Suit no.334 of 2010 for specific 2 AO-1241-10.sxw performance of contract and he also filed an application Ex.5 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property and/or obstructing the development activities being carried out by the plaintiff/appellant on the suit land, pending final disposal of the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and denied that any agreement for development was concluded. According to them, the property belongs to a third person who is not party to the suit and the defendants themselves had entered into an agreement for purchase of that property from the owner, but so far no such sale deed is executed in their favour. According to them, some negotiations were going on between the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the one hand and the plaintiff on the other and during said negotiations, the above referred amount was paid to them as security deposit, no contract for development was concluded between the parties and therefore the plaintiff does not have any right either to seek enforcement of that agreement or to make any development on the suit property. The trial Court after hearing the parties, rejected the application Ex.5. 4. In view of the facts stated above and on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that the suit property does not belong to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The owner of the land is not a party to the suit. Defendant Nos. 2 3 AO-1241-10.sxw and 3 had, at the most, entered into an agreement to purchase the land from the owner even though they claimed to have made some payment to the original owner. It is not clear whether the agreement for sale in their favour itself is enforceable or not. Secondly, there is no written agreement for development between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Even though the payment of Rs. 39,27,500/- by the plaintiff to the defendant is admitted, according to them it was only security deposit pending the negotiations and no contract has been concluded between the parties. There is no document to support the claim of the plaintiff. Thus, prima facie, there is no material to support the claim of the plaintiff against the defendants. Even if such agreement would be there, the plaintiff could not succeed in getting such order in his favour pending the suit, particularly, because the land belongs to some third person, who is not a party. In absence of that party,no Court could give any relief in favour of the plaintiff whereby he would be entitled to make development on the property pending the suit. In these circumstances, I find no fault in the impugned order. There is no substance in the present appeal. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed. 6. As the appeal itself is dismissed, the C.A. No.1534/2010 does not 4 AO-1241-10.sxw survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 7. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant contends that the trial Court had granted order of status quo and it was continued till 16.10.2010. According to him, same order be continued for some more time. The said order of status quo shall continue for further four weeks subject to condition that the plaintiff shall not enter into the property. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)