-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from Order No. 999 of 2007 with Civil Application No.1366 of 2007 Mathurabai Rambhau Memorial Trust ..Appellants vs. 1. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority and others ..Respondents Shri Birendra Saraf with Shri Hitesh Jain and Smt.Rajlaxmi Mohandas i/b ALMT legal for appellants. Shri Vijay Patil for respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI S.C.DHARMADHIKARI S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 14th February, 2008 14th February, 2008 14th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Appeal from order impugns the order passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.1362 of 2006. The appellants have filed the said suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the respondents to this appeal who are Pimpri Chinchwad New town Development Authority, President and Chief Executive thereof. 2. In the said suit, an application for interim injunction was made. -2- 3. The case that has been set up in the plaint is that the appellants are a public Trust conducting various educational courses and respondent no.1 before me had published a brochure inviting offers from the prospective purchasers for the flats and shops in the complex constructed by the first respondent. The information letters stated that the allotment will be on the first cum first serve basis. It is not necessary to go into any further details because the interim injunction application preferred proceeds on the basis that despite the concluded contract the first respondent conducted a lottery system and drew lots for 120 flats and 31 shops. It is, in these circumstances, the suit was filed wherein an application for injunction was preferred. These contents have been denied by the first respondent. They stated that there is no concluded contract. 4. The Trial Court accepting this prima facie case of the first respondent rejected the application for interim injunction. 5. Now, I am informed that the draw in so far as other flats and shops is concerned, is -3- complete and allotment has been made. However, out of original allottees some 5 allottees have not come forward to take physical possession and, therefore, galas/shops/flats are available and in possession of the first respondent. They are not allotted to anybody. 6. As yet, no decision has been taken by the first respondent to allot these five galas. In my view, instead of entering into any larger controversy at this prima facie stage, interest of justice would be subserved if liberty is granted to the appellants to file fresh application for interim injunction in respect of unallotted/vacant galas, in case they are aggrieved by any action of the first respondent in proceeding to allot them either by public auction or otherwise. If such application is preferred by the appellants/original plaintiffs in the said suit, the Trial Court to decide the same uninfluenced by any observations in the order dated 21st August, 2007 and on its own merits so also in accordance with law. The appeal and civil application is disposed of with aforesaid liberty. Counsel appearing for the first respondent states that in case any resolution is passed or decision taken to -4- dispose of the vacant/unallotted galas/shops/flats, then, prior intimation thereof would be given to the Advocate appearing for the appellants in the Trial Court. Appeal from order is disposed of. 7. In view of disposal of the appeal from order, civil application does not survive and hence disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)