6. caw 1746-11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1746 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5056 OF 2011 Yamuna Ashok Tandel & Ors .. Applicants / Org. Petitioners Vs Puranik Builders Pvt Ltd & Anr .. Respondents Mr. Sandesh Patil for the Applicants Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. Writ Petition is admitted pursuant to the order passed on 11th July, 2011. The applicants in this Civil Application who are plaintiffs in the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 112 of 2011 before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Thane claim that they have terminated the development agreement with respondent no. 1. The proceedings in the said suit are stayed on account of the order passed on 11th July, 2011. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that on account of the developments which have 1 6. caw 1746-11.doc taken place in present Civil Writ Petition, the respondents herein are likely to go on with the construction and defeat the purpose of filing of the suit by the Applicants and therefore, respondent no. 1 in this Civil Application should be restrained from carrying out construction on the land in question. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent no. 1 herein has submitted that in terms of development agreement, certain area was to be put in possession of the applicants herein and once that is done, the respondents herein can be said to have complied with the terms of development agreement as whole amount payable as per the development agreement is already passed on to the applicants. 5. At this juncture, I do not want to record any observations whether the entire amount is handed over to the applicants herein or not. Since the validity of the development agreement itself is under challenge and since the applicants want that the respondents herein should not develop the land in question anymore after termination of the said agreement and certainly after the institution of the aforesaid suit, it is necessary that no new construction should take place on the land in question, otherwise it would cause prejudice to the applicants herein. The proceedings before the trial Court are stayed by order dated 11th July, 2011. On account of this, the applicants are 2 6. caw 1746-11.doc unable to approach the trial Court for appropriate order of injunction. On this ground, I observe that the applicants herein are right in filing the Civil Application. In my view, no new development activities should take place at suit property and therefore, the respondents herein will have to be restrained from carrying out further construction on the suit property. In view of above, following order is passed: O R D E R i. Civil Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). ii. There shall be no order as to cost. iii. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. 2. After passing of the order, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 herein applied for stay of this order. 3. Request is rejected. [ R. Y. GANOO, J ] 3 6. caw 1746-11.doc 4