1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 802 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 802 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 802 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1124 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4776 OF 2006 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 5363 OF 2006 GASPER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr.Sameer R.Bhalekar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.J.Rais, Advocate, a/w Shri Rajesh N.Kachare,Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 & 3. Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate for B.M.C. - Respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 31st January, 2008. DATE : 31st January, 2008. DATE : 31st January, 2008. 2 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The other respondents are not represented by anybody,though they are served. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the reasons given by the learned trial Court while rejecting Notice of Motion No.4776/2006. 2. The dispute pertains to a part of the premises earmarked as two meter rooms and society office in the approved plans. According to the appellants, who are the plaintiffs, the said premises cannot be transferred by the builder to anybody. However,the learned trial Court noted that earlier Suit No.5088/2003 filed by the plaintiffs was withdrawn. In that suit, similar prayers were made. In view of the withdrawal,there was no interim relief in force against any of the defendants. The learned trial Court noted that as per the record, the disputed premises are already occupied by some other parties and to grant interim relief as sought in the Notice of Motion would amount to granting mandatory injunction, whereby the parties in possession will be required to be removed from the disputed premises. The 3 learned trial Court also noted that according to the plaintiffs, the documents, which are produced by the defendants in support of their claim, were forged or fake, but this can be looked into at the time of trial of the suit. Taking into consideration the circumstances, I do not find any justification or valid reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court refusing injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. However, in view of the fact that the suit is still pending and it will be in the interest of parties that there should not be any further complications, the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 may be restrained from creating any third party interest pending the suit. 3. In the result, the Appeal stands disposed of with a direction that respondent Nos. 4 to 9 shall not create third party interest in the disputed property till the final disposal of the suit. 4. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, the C.A.No.1124 of 2007 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 4 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)