: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 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 715 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 715 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 715 OF 2007 M/s. Prime Developers ..Appellant versus M/s. Priyadarshani Construction and Builders & Developers ..Respondents Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Sr. Counsel with Mr. G. S. Godbole for the Appellant. Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Sr. Counsel with Mr. S. A. Sawant for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Appeal from Order, the original Defendant No. 10 has impugned an Order dated 17.8.2007 by which the trial court has allowed an application at Exhibit 58 instituted by the respondents - plaintiffs against the appellant, the original defendant No.10, seeking injunction restraining them from making any construction or development on the suit plot and from creating third :2: party interest thereon. Both the plaintiffs and defendant No. 10 have entered into agreements with original defendant Nos. 1 to 7, the owners of the suit property. The agreement for sale with the plaintiffs was executed on 19.7.2006 while the Tripartite Agreement between defendant No. 10, the landlords and CIDCO was executed on 10.1.2007. The trial court having considered the entire material placed by the parties on record has held that the plaintiffs have proved a prima-facie case so also the balance of convenience lies in their favour and if the injunction, as prayed, is not granted in their favour they would suffer irreparable loss. I have perused the impugned judgment. In my opinion, though too long, it is a well reasoned judgment which considered all the documents placed on record by the parties so also all the facts and circumstances brought on record were kept in view. The impugned judgment needs no interference and deserves to be confirmed for the reasons recorded therein. 3. Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Defendant No.10 have paid Rs.1,06,00,000/- to the landlords and got :3: the Tripartite Agreement dated 10.1.2007 executed making CIDCO as a party to the Agreement. He submitted that the suit land was allotted to the landlords as a part of the scheme of the CIDCO and in the terms of the allotment of the land and the lease executed clearly mentions that the landlords could hand over possession of the said property to third person only with the permission of the CIDCO. In view thereof, he submits that the agreement dated 19.7.2006 executed by the landlords in favour of the respondents - plaintiffs is illegal and void since the CIDCO was not party to the said agreement. In my opinion, such argument need not be considered, at this stage. Mr. Jahagirdar further submits that CIDCO is not made party to the suit and under any circumstances without consent of the CIDCO, a decree cannot be passed. In my opinion, this argument is also not open to the Defendant No.10, at this stage. It is always open for the Plaintiffs to add CIDCO as defendants in the suit if so advised, apart from the fact that for decreeing such suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, CIDCO may or may not be a necessary party and there could be a conditional decree. However, I do not wish to express any opinion on merits of the case. On the :4: other hand the plaintiffs also seem to have taken care while executing the MOU and the agreement and have also made payment of about Rs.29,00,000/- to the landlords. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs had sent a notice dated 2.1.2007 to the CIDCO keeping them informed about the sale agreement dated 19.7.2007 and their intention to file suit against the landlords and the CIDCO was requested not to entertain any application for transfer of the plot. Prima-facie I am satisfied that if an injunction as prayed is not granted, the suit for the relief of specific performance may become infructuous. The trial court has rightly allowed the application at Exhibit 58 for the reasons recorded in the impugned order. The Appeal from Order is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. At this stage, Mr. Walawalkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on instructions, stated that the plaintiffs are prepared to deposit Rs.80,00,000/- to make the total of about Rs.1,09,00,000/- (Rs.80,00,000/- + Rs.29,00,000/-) which is little more than the amount paid by the defendants to the landlords in the trial court within six weeks from today. In the circumstances, :5: I pass the following order: (i) The Plaintiffs to deposit Rs.80,00,000/- in the trial court within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the trial court shall pass appropriate orders and invest the said amount in fixed deposit with nationalised bank for a period of one year. (ii) The trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of one year from today. The trial court shall dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law and without being influenced by the impugned order and this order. (iii) The parties are directed to co-operate for the disposal of the suit within time frame. (iv) Parties are directed to communicate this order to the trial court within a period of two weeks from today. :6: Appeal accordingly stands disposed of. (D. B. BHOSALE, J.) (D. B. BHOSALE, J.) (D. B. BHOSALE, J.)