1 ao1303 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1303 OF 2010 Gopal Pundlik Devale & Ors. ...Appellants vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others ...Respondents Mr.Ramesh Dube-Patil i/b M/s.Joy & Co. for the appellants Ms K.K.Soraan for the respondent no.1 Mr.Kunal Cheema for respondent no.3 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 5,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The appellants are occupying certain structures which are described in the suit. The suit is for perpetual injunction. On notice of motion for interim relief taken out by the appellants, the Trial Court has granted a limited injunction restraining the respondent nos.1 to 3 who are the developers from demolishing the suit premises in possession of the appellants which are described in paragraph 2 of the plaint. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the respondent nos.1 to 3 are carrying on illegal work of redevelopment. He submitted that if the respondent nos.1 to 3 are permitted to carry out the work of construction, they will exhaust the entire F.S.I and therefore, there will be no F.S.I available for construction of a building for accommodating the appellants. 2 ao1303 3 I have considered the submissions. I have perused the plaint. In the plaint there is no prayer made by the appellants for grant of permanent accommodation in lieu of the suit premises held by them. By the impugned order, the respondent nos.1 to 3 have been restrained from demolishing the suit premises in possession of the appellants. The trial Court has observed that the third respondent is implementing a redevelopment scheme on his own property. Interim relief granted by the trial Court sufficiently protects the interests of the appellants. The grievance regarding the consumption of F.S.I cannot be considered as there is no final relief prayed for in the plaint directing the respondent nos.1 to 3 to allot permanent accommodation to the appellants in the redeveloped property. Therefore, no fault can be found with the equitable and discretionary order passed by the trial Court by which the structures of the appellants have been protected. No case for interference is made out. Appeal from order is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4 All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are kept open which will be decided on its own merits. 5 Civil application no. 1607 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE