wp921-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.921 OF 2010 Mr.Surendrasingh Bagga .. Petitioner versus Yashoda Kunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd .. Respondent Mr.A.B.Tajane for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 8th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Heard. The petitioner who is the member of the respondent-Society has impugned in this petition, the order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court allowing the dispute filed by the Society and granting permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from locking the public entrance leading to the terrace and further directing him to remove the lock put on the entrance. 2 Mr.Tajane appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits wp921-10.doc 2 that on 18th March 1996 the Society has issued a No Objection Certificate in which it categorically states that it has no objection to the flat being sold to the petitioner with the adjoining terrace. That No Objection Certificate has been produced before Courts below during the course of trial and its contents are admitted. Once that is the admitted position, then, the Society cannot turn around and lay a claim on the terrace on the basis that it is a common area and, therefore, meant for enjoyment of all members. Consequently, dispute could not have been allowed and particularly granting reliefs as prayed. There is an error apparent on the face of record and, therefore, this petition should be allowed. 3 It is not possible to uphold this contention for more than one reason. The document i.e No Objection Certificate cannot be seen in isolation but must be seen in the totality of the oral and documentary evidence before the Court. So seen, it is apparent that when the petitioner was given an opportunity to produce the sale deeds and prove the case, the sale deeds themselves do not disclose that the flat with adjoining terrace has been sold to him. wp921-10.doc 3 Once there is no reference to the terrace area in the sale deeds, then, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court was justified in interfering with the order of the trial Court and allowing the dispute in its entirety. The terrace is meant for common enjoyment of all members and the petitioner could not have restricted it to himself exclusively. By locking the said terrace and blocking the entrance thereto, he has apprehended and prevented the other members from using the terrace once it is held to be common area. The finding of fact that terrace is common area and the obstruction placed by the petitioner deserves to be removed, does not require any interference in this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is equitable and discretionary. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)