Ladda 1 WP-6668-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6668 OF 2011. Prof. L.V.Krishnamurthy & others .. Petitioners. Versus Shrinagar Co-op.Hsg. Society Ltd. and others. .. Respondents. Ms Prachi Khaudge i/by M.P.Vashi & Asso. For the petitioners. Mr N.N.Bhadrajja for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr Vineet Naik, Advocate for respondent No.6 i/by Kanga & Co. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 23rd August, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners are original disputants. They are challenging the resolution passed by respondent No.1-Society for redevelopment of the plot of land owned by the Society. The dispute is pending before Co- operative Court No.II, Mumbai. In the said dispute, the petitioners have applied for interim relief restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 6 from Ladda 2 WP-6668-11 proceeding further in pursuance of the resolution mentioned above. The trial Court rejected the application on 31.7.2010. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred before the Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai. The Co- operative Appellate Court, initially, granted status-quo by order dated 11th May,2011. However, the first respondent gave an undertaking at Exh.23. By this undertaking, the Secretary of Respondent No.1-Society has undertaken that he will not mortgage plot of the land owned by the Society and further he shall not evict the petitioners from their respective flats till hearing of the appeal. 3. The first respondent, in view of the undertaking, requested the lower appellate Court to vacate the order of status-quo and permit respondent No.1 to complete paper work in connection with redevelopment process. The Member of the Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, thereafter passed an order on 4.8.2011 accepting the undertaking of respondent No.1-Secretary of the Society and respondent No.1 was permitted to complete the paper work in connection with redevelopment process. This order is challenged in the present writ petition. 4. I have perused the undertaking at Exh.23 furnished by the Secretary of respondent No.1. By the said undertaking, the Secretary has agreed not to mortgage society’s plot of land. He also agreed that the petitioners will not be evicted from their respective flats till hearing of the appeal. Respondent No.1-Society requested the Appellate Court just to Ladda 3 WP-6668-11 permit for completion of the paper work regarding the redevelopment process. In my view, the undertaking furnished by the Secretary of respondent No.1 sufficiently protects the petitioners’ interest. If respondent No.1 is allowed to proceed and complete the paper work no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. Ultimately, if the petitioners succeed in proving the illegality of the resolution then the said resolution will be set aside. The Bench of the Cooperative Appellate Court had already fixed the appeal for hearing on 1st July, 2011. However, on that day it could not be heard. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 states that he will not claim equity merely because completion of the paper work. That statement in view of the above observation is accepted. 5. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, while exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, is, however, directed to dispose of the petitioners’ appeal, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)