: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.441 OF 2008 Jain Developers .. Appellants V/s. Gangabai Shankar Patil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Y.K. Tiwari i/b. Mr. M.A. Khan for the Appellants. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel, with Mr. Ajay S. Patil for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.B. Raghuwanshi a/w. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for Respondent No.11. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The appellants have challenged the order passed on 24th March, 2008, by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel in Special Darkhast No.656 of 2007, confirming the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for interim relief. The learned Judge has rejected the same on the ground that the appellants can be compensated for the loss suffered by paying approximately Rs.20 lacs to Defendant Nos.1 to 6, who were the original lessees of CIDCO. : 2 : 2. After the property was leased to them by CIDCO, a tripartite agreement has been entered into between Defendant Nos.1 to 6 on the one hand, Defendant No.7 on the other with CIDCO being the confirming party. This agreement was executed on 20th December, 2003. Thereafter, Defendant No.7 executed an agreement in favour of the added respondent, again with CIDCO as a confirming party. This tripartite agreement has not been challenged in the Suit. 3. In my view, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. However, the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 shall deposit in the trial Court the amount paid by the plaintiff to them, i.e. Rs.19,50,000/-, within a period of three weeks from today. 4. The plaintiff may apply to the trial Court for joining the added respondent as a party defendant to the Suit. That application, if preferred, shall be disposed of on merits. : 3 : 5. The appellants may apply to the trial Court for interim relief, if so advised, after joining the added respondent as a party defendant. 6. The Appeal from Order is disposed of. .......