- 1 - 977 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.977 OF 2010 in NOTICE OF MOTION NO.208 OF 2010 in L.C.SUIT NO.172 OF 2010 1.Mr.Paresh Jitendra Shah & ors. Appellants (Orig.Plffs) vs M/s Sara Construction & ors.. Respondents (Orig.Defts) Mr.M.S.Kadu for Appellants Mr.N.V.Walawalkar,Sr.counsel with Mr.L.V.Bommer, i.b M/s.Shaunak Satpute & Co for Respondent no.1 Mr.Niranjan Pandit and Mr.Ashish Gade i.b Tamhane & Co for Respondent nos. 2 and 5. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J DATE: 27th April, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1. By the impugned order Notice of motion for temporary injunction taken out by the appellants has been dismissed by the Trial Court. - 2 - 977 2. The appellants are members of 2nd respondent cooperative housing society. The challenge in the suit filed by the appellants is essentially to the Development agreement dated 21st February, 2006 and a Power of Attorney of the same date executed by the 2nd respondent society in favour of the first respondent developer. The appellants are admittedly members of the 2nd respondent society. It must be stated here that the appellants have filed a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 in the Cooperative Court where the challenge is to the resolution passed by the General body of 2nd respondent on 10th February,2006 by which the 2nd respondent resolved to appoint the first respondent as a Developer. In the said dispute, a prayer has been made for grant of temporary injunction against the 1st respondent. - 3 - 977 3. Appellants are members of 2nd respondent cooperative housing society. Unless the appellants succeed in obtaining a relief as regards the decision of 2nd respondent society to enter into a Development Agreement in favour of the 1st respondent, the appellants are not entitled to any discretionary and equitable relief against the first respondent in as much as the appellants being members of the 2nd respondent society are bound by the resolution passed by the 2nd respondent- society. 4. It must be noted here that the trial Court has recorded a finding that the 1st respondent has already parted with huge amount of Rs.51 lacs. 5. It must be noted here that though the - 4 - 977 trial Court decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the appellants, the said order has been challenged by 2nd respondent by filing a Writ Petition being the writ Petition No.5002 of 2010. Said Writ Petition has been admitted by this Court on 8th February,2011. After hearing the appellants, this Court granted interim relief of stay of suit by recording a prima facie finding that the dispute in the present suit will be governed by section 91 of the said Act of 1960. 6. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this is not a case where this Court should interfere with the discretionary order of the trial court declining to grant interim relief. Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. All contentions on merits of the suit of both sides are kept open. C.A.No.1189 of 2010 - 5 - 977 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. A.S.Oka, J