1 AO864OF2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.864 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1073 OF 2010I IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.864 OF 2010 Brijmohan C Gupta .. Appellant. -versus Hari Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Limited .. Respondent. Mr. Navin Parikh with Ms Hetal Patel for the appellant. Mr. Paresh S. Madkaikar, advocate for the respondents. CORAM: R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 9th AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, in Notice of Motion No.591 of 2010, in Short Cause Suit No.556 of 2010 whereby he granted interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (a)(i) and refused all other reliefs. 2. It is not necessary to recount here the efforts put by appellant to obtain several permissions for putting up hoarding in 2 AO864OF2010.sxw terms of contract between the appellant and the respondent society. The Respondent society has eventually taken a decision not to permit the appellant to put up hoardings, inspite of his efforts in getting requisite permission. The appellant, therefore, preferred suit before the City Civil Court and prayed for injunction restraining the respondent society from granting any NOC, permission or sanction to or arrive at or enter into any contract in favour any third party, approaching the BMC for withdrawing and/or cancelling the permission/NOC Licence and/or permit granted to the appellant, interfering with free ingress and egress of the Plaintiff, his servants, representatives, workers etc. and to direct for putting up hoarding as agreed. 3. This is a matter in which loss which may be caused to the appellant can be computed in terms of money. There is no irreparable loss caused to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant states that appellant had incurred a lot of expenses in getting getting various permissions. In business this happens often and therefore it cannot be said that the injunction specifically enforcing the contract had to be issued during the pendency of suit. In fact such injunction could not have been issued. The learned Trial Judge had granted prayer clause (a)(i), which is good enough, and therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference and the appeal is dismissed. 3 AO864OF2010.sxw 4. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the society does not intend to have any hoarding on the society’s building and therefore, there is no question of entering into contract in favour of third party. 5. The present Appeal From Order is dismissed and so Civil Application No.l073 of 2010, stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)