1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3291 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3291 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3291 OF 2008 M/s.Planet Builders .. Petitioner vs. Shri Kacharu Joma Joshi and others. .. Respondents Ms.Aparna Shinde for the petitioner Mr.Vinay Sonpal, A.G.P. for respondent nos.7 Ms.Asha M. Bhambwani for respondent nos.1 to 5 Mr.S.N.Patil for respondent nos.6 Mr.Vipin Kamdi i/b M/s.Ram and Co. for the applicant in Civil Applicaiton No.1479 of 2009 Mr.P.S.Dani for the applicant in Civil Application No.1480 of 2008 CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. Smt.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. Smt.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: APRIL 16, 2009 DATE: APRIL 16, 2009 DATE: APRIL 16, 2009 P.C. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner have filed additional affidavit in reply. The learned counsel for the respondent tenders affidavit in reply. 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has approached this court claiming to be the owners of plot nos.165, 166, 185A, Sec.30, situated at Owe-Kharkar under 12.5% scheme site, measuring 199.94, 199.94 & 399.905 sq.mtrs. respectively, having been allowed the same by respondent CIDCO i.e. City Industrial and Development Corporation, Maharashtra and for that purpose they seek to invoke extraordinary Jurisdiction of this court under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the impugned letter issued by respondent nos.6 on 4.7.07 annexed at Exhibit ’H’ and restrain them from implementing and/or action and/or taking any steps in furtherance of the order by the letter issued by the respondent nos.6 dated 4.7.07 and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The undisputed facts of the case is that these plots of land were allotted to respondent nos.1 to 5 who entered into an agreement with intervenors and it was a subject matter of a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel in Special Civil 3 Suit No.75 of 2005. It appears that the trial court granted a decree in favour of the intervenor Vinodkumar Manaklal Mal and directed original allottees to execute the sale deed in favour of the said intervenor, Vinodkumar Manaklal Mal, so also in favour of the other intervenors namely Mukhtar Amirjan Sayyad, Sayyad Abdul Jabbar and Ravichandrarao Mahajan. The learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 5 states that the said decree has been obtained by fraud and collusion and that the intervenors were well aware of the circumstances under which decree was obtained. This court is not concerned with the inter se dispute between respondent nos.1 to 5 and intervenors as the said decree is not challenged by the judgment debtors i.e. respondent nos.1 to 5 but it is only in execution proceedings that they have filed their exception causing obstruction to the execution of the decree and seeking an enquiry in the matter with a prayer to dismiss the execution proceedings which is subjudice. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, it will not be proper for this court to invoke its extraordinary Jurisdiction on the prayer of the petitioner who claims title through respondent nos.1 to 5 under subsequent agreement of sale (triparte) 4 executed between the parties on 17.05.07. 5. In our view, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Civil court and establish their right under the said agreement rather than seek a writ against respondent nos.1 to 5, original owners and CIDCO. We therefore, dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioners to seek alternate remedy including criminal proceedings. Petition is dismissed accordingly. All applications of intervenors are allowed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar, J.) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar, J.) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar, J.)