1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1206 OF 2011 Sudhakar Kundlik Patil & Another ...Petitioners Versus Vinayak Jagannath Bhoir & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rahul Singh for the Petitioners Mr.S.V.Gavand for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr.Mahesh Patil i/b. Mulani & Co. for the Respondent No.5 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 7th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and respondent no.5 respectively. The point raised before this Court is very limited, in as much as, according to the petitioners the petitioners have not created third party rights in respect of Survey Nos.298/2 of Village Majiwade, District Thane, 2 which constitutes one item of the suit property in the counter claim filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 in Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 2006. By Order dated 4.11.2006, the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane granted application at Exhibit 43 filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 in the aforesaid counter claim thereby restraining the petitioners from creating third party rights in regard to the properties namely Survey Nos.7/10, 98/2B, 98/14, 98/20B , 104/17, 298/2 situated at Village Majiwade, Taluka and District Thane. 2. Being aggrieved by this Order, the petitioners filed Misc. Civil Appeal in the Court of District Judge at Thane being Misc. Civil No. 163 of 2006. The said Misc. Civil Appeal was decided by the judgment and order dated 30th September, 2010 and the said Misc. Civil Appeal was dismissed. Against these two orders, this petition is filed. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that so far as the property bearing Survey No.298 Hissa No.2 referred to above, the petitioners have already entered into development 3 agreement with Mr. V.K.Hingepatil and M/s. Dalvi Premises Pvt. Ltd., on 3rd January 2005. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders mentioned above are required to be set aside atleast with reference to property bearing Survey No.298 Hissa No.2 on the ground that third party rights are already created. He wanted clarification in that behalf. 4. It is admitted by the respondent nos.1 to 4 in paragraph 4 of the application at Exhibit 43 in their counter claim that the development agreement has taken place in regard to Survey No.298 Hissa No.2. In the normal course it can be accepted that execution of development agreement would mean creation of third party rights. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4 submitted that the permission from the Revenue Authority was required to fulfill the terms of this development agreement and it is quite likely that the petitioners would make an application for those permissions under the respective laws so as to perfect the title of the persons in whose favour the development agreement has been entered into. Learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 4 submitted that the petitioners should be restrained from taking further steps to perfect 4 the title of the persons in whose favour development agreement dated 3rd January, 2005 has been executed. According to him, any steps taken after the development agreement dated 3rd January, 2005 towards perfecting the title of the persons in whose favour the agreement dated 3.1.2005 is entered into will amount into creation of third party rights. This submission is required to be accepted because the person in whose favour the aforesaid agreement is entered into may take further steps to perfect their title and the respondent nos.1 to 4 would be deprived of their property and the said property would get excluded from the list of assets mentioned in the counter claim. 5. In reply to the aforesaid submission, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that steps in accordance with the provisions of law have been taken to perfect the title of the persons in whose favour the development agreement dated 3rd January 2005 is executed. 6. At this juncture, I do not wish to go into the question whether the title of the persons in whose favour agreement is entered into is perfected. It will be open for the respondent nos.1 to 4 before this 5 Court to analyse the factual position and take further steps in accordance with the provisions of law. As of today, statement made by learned Advocate for the petitioners that title of Shri V. K.Hingepatil and M/s. Dalvi Properties Pvt. Ltd., is already perfected is noted. The order of injunction passed below Exhibit 43 dated 4th November, 2006 shall operate against the petitioners. No interference is required in the impugned order. With these observations, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)