1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8361 OF 2011 Dr. Jayprakash B. Kore & Others ...Petitioners Versus Sou Smita Y. Joshi & Others ...Respondents Mr.N.R.Bubna for the Petitioners Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni , Sr. Counsel i/b. P.D.Pise for the Respondents CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 11th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides. The application for injunction filed by the petitioners in Regular Suit No.159 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj, District Sangli was granted against the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents challenged the said order by way of Misc. Civil Appeal No.130 of 2011 in the Court of District Judge-3, Sangli. The 2 learned District Judge-3, Sangli has by order dated 26.8.2011 set aside the order below Exhibit 5. Against this order dated 26.8.2011 the petitioners have approached this court. 2. According to the petitioners, two plots bearing nos.135 and 136 were agreed to be kept open and amenities were to be supplied to the petitioners and other plot holders by utilizing these two plots. The petitioners approached the court for injunction on the ground that the respondents are trying to develop the suit plots for the purpose other than the amenities said to have been described in the brochure. 3. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. The petitioners have not been able to place before the Court any layout plan by which plot nos.135 and 136 were directed to be kept open. If this is so, the provision of Section 7A of the MOFA Act would help the respondents and they can carryout the construction on the said plots. The stand of the petitioners that representations were made to the petitioners based on the site plan which was shown to the petitioners at the time of entering into agreement, is of no use to the petitioners for the purpose of contending that those two open plots should be 3 kept open for ever or should be utilized for amenities, because what was being shown to the petitioners was not the lay out plan. If it would have been the lay out plan, things would have been different. 4. So far as amenities are concerned, the petitioners have placed reliance on the brochure wherein the respondents have shown what is to happen at site. At the same time, in the said brochure a condition is mentioned that the respondents may grant the amenities and/or they could revise the amenities on certain terms and conditions. The contention of the petitioners that brochure binds the respondents can’t be accepted. If there would have been a specific provision, in the agreement itself, that would have assisted the petitioners. 5. After considering the above facts, I am inclined to observe that the learned District Judge-3, Sangli has arrived at proper conclusion for the purpose of rejecting the application for injunction. 6. At one time, learned Advocate for the petitioners wanted this Curt to refer to certain clauses appearing in the agreements. Such clauses are mentioned in the major clause 4. A perusal of the said clauses, 4 nodoubt goes to show that some representations have been made that certain plots should be kept open. However, that situation by itself would not bind the respondents because in the layout plan the plots are not ordered to be kept open. 7. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, no interference is required in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioners wanted this court to observe that the constructions, if any, on plot no.135 and 136 should be subject to the result of the suit. Such a clarification is not required because the petitioners have sought a declaration in the suit itself that it should be declared that the plot nos.135 and 136 should be declared as open plot of land. Surely, if the petitioners succeeds, the learned trial Judge shall pass an appropriate order as regards the construction which may come up on plot nos.135 and 136. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)