: 1 : Vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.25 OF 2010 Hareshwar Manilal Daki & Anr. ... Appellants V/s. M/s.Roma Buildes Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.S.D. Patil for Appellants Ms.Gauri Godse for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 3, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appellants have approached this Court contending that the trial Court was in error in not granting interim relief to them. The appellants claim that they have cancelled the agreement dated 22.6.1998 entered into by them with the respondents for development of their property. According to the appellants, their signatures were obtained on blank sheets of paper and the contents of the agreement were then inserted without their consent. They have sought cancellation of the agreements in these circumstances. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that although two buildings have been completed, the rest of the property should remain as it is and the respondents should be restrained from developing that part of the property or creating third party rights during the pendency of the suit. : 2 : 3. The learned advocate for the respondent submits that consideration has been paid to the appellants and the agreement was sought to be cancelled after a long delay. She therefore submits that no case has been made out to grant an injunction in favour of the appellants. She further submits that a power of attorney was executed in favour of one of the Directors of the respondent company pursuant to which development has taken place and third party rights have been created. According to her, the buildings have already been constructed on survey No.123, hissa Nos.17 and 19 and the flats in those buildings have been sold to the purchasers. Therefore, she submits that the Court should not at this stage restrain the respondents from creating third party rights. 4. Having considered the submissions put forth by the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find that the trial Court has alluded to the fact that the appellants have contended that their signatures were obtained on blank sheets of paper and the contents of the agreement were inserted later. The trial Court has held that this issue would be decided at the final hearing of the suit. In my opinion, if it is found that the suit is finally disposed of with the finding that the appellants’ contention was correct and no relief whatsoever is granted to the appellants at this stage, they would be without remedy when the suit is finally decided. 5. The appeal is therefore disposed of. However, the respondent is directed to include a clause in any future agreement of sale or any agreement creating third party rights in respect of the suit property, that the agreement would be subject to the : 3 : result in the present suit. 6. In view of the disposal of the appeal, civil application No.35 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. 7. Ms.Godse seeks a stay of this order. In my opinion, there is no need to grant any stay since the development work has not been stayed by this order.