1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4794 OF 2009 Laj Lakhiram Vigh & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. M/s.Maitri Park Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Jemmy Mehta i/b G.S.Bhat for the petitioners. Mr.Burgin Somandy with Vishal Thadani for respondent nos.1 to 8 and 10. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Counsel i/b Ms.Deepa Pohuja for respondent no.11. Coram : D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the courts below in the proceedings arising from the application filed by the petitioners at Exhibit-5, seeking stay of redevelopment process which the respondent-society and the developer have started in pursuance of the registered agreement dated 26.5.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the parties for quite sometime. The learned counsel for the society and the developer, on instructions and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the society and the developer, have made a categoric statement that in the process of 2 redevelopment they will not have to touch the buildings in which the petitioners are presently residing atleast till 30th June, 2011. They further submit that construction of two towers has already commenced and they expect it to be completed by the end of April-May, 2011. In view of the statements made by learned counsel for the society and the developer, the parties have agreed for the following order. It is made clear that the following order is passed without disturbing the impugned orders: (i) The possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed in respect of the premises in their possession till the end of June, 2011. (ii) The Co-operative Court shall hear and decide case No.CC/102 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible and preferrably within a period of one and half year from today. (iii) All parties to the dispute are directed to co-operate for disposal of the dispute within the timeframe. (iv) Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from his clients who are present in the court, states that the petitioners undertake that they shall not disturb or create any hurdles in the redevelopment which has already commenced. Their undertaking is accepted. (v) It is open to the petitioners to seek inspection and also to seek copies of the documents, if they so desire, from the 3 society/developer through their advocate on record within three weeks from today. (vi) Mr.Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel appearing from the developer submits that the developer shall give inspection as requested by the petitioners within a period of three weeks therefrom. His statement is accepted. (vii) It is also open to the petitioners to seek copies of the documents at their own cost from the developer, if they so desire. (viii) The assurance given by the society and the developer that they will not have to touch the petitioners’ buildings, is without prejudice to their rights and contentions and without admitting the petitioners’ rights, as claimed by them in these proceedings. (ix) It is open to the society and the developer to make an application for appropriate relief before the co-operative court, if they find that the petitioners are creating any hurdle in completing the construction of two towers within the timeframe. If such an application is made, the same may be considered and dealt with on merits in accordance with law. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)