IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 800 OF 2008 IN SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO. 1202 OF 2005. Sanjay Bakhat Ajwani & Ors. ...... ...... ...... Appellants V/s Down Town Estate Developers & Ors. ...... ...... Respondents. Mr.Rohit Kapadia, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Nitin Mulye, Adv. For the appellants. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar with Mr.A.G.Damale, Adv. For respondent Nos. 38 to 40. Mr.V.A.Thorat, Sr. Adv. With Ms.Prachi Tatake for Mr.Y.R.Shah, Adv. For respondent N.42. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 15th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard Mr.Kapadia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr.Thorat and Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Advocates for respondent Nos.42 and 38 to 40, respectively. The appellants-original plaintiffs challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 27.5.08 passed below Ex.5 in Special Civil Suit No.1302/05 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The appellants filed Special Civil Suit Nko.1202/05 seeking possession of the suit premises from respondent Nos.38 to 40 and 42, for declaration that the alleged resolutions dated 4.8.03 and 20.11.03 1 are illegal, null and void, in the alternate for declaring the said alleged resolutions as voidable, for declaration that undated MOU and undated supplementary MOU are illegal and for recovery of Rs.6,40,085,29/-. 2. The appellants in the aforesaid special civil suit filed an application below Ex.5 for following interim reliefs: “(a) During the pendency of the present suit the defendants Nos. 2 to 42 may kindly be restrained/prohibited by an order of temporary injunction from doing/causing any construction/development on the suit property described in para 1 of the plaint either personally or through their agents, employees, assigns etc. (b) During the pendency of the present suit the defendants Nos. 2 to 42 may kindly be restrained/prohibited by an order of temporary injunction from creating third party interest and/or entering into any transaction or agreement with any third person in respect of the suit property described in para 1 of the plaint either personally or through their agents, employees, assigns etc.” 3. The trial Court viz. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune after perusal of the documents on record and after hearing both the sides held that the appellants failed to prove prima facie case. It was held that the appellants will not suffer irreparable loss in case interim injunction is refused. The trial Court also held that the balance of 2 convenience lies in favour of the respondents. In view of the above findings the appellants' application at Ex.5 was rejected which rejection is impugned in the aforesaid appeal from order. 4. After hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for respective parties, in my view, there is no need to enter into the merits of the matter and the present appeal from order can conveniently be disposed of as both the interim prayers have been rendered infructuous. 5. The dispute is about the land bearing S.No.197, Hissa No.3 situated at village Lohegaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation admeasuring about 4 H. 37 ares i.e. 43700 sq. mtrs. (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the suit land”). The suit land for the purpose of development is divided into commercial project and residential project. Out of the suit land an area approximately admeasuring about 6,225 sq. mtrs. Is being developed for commercial project and the rest of the area is being developed for residential purpose. As far as residential project is concerned it not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 38 to 42 have invested huge amounts and construction of nine buildings consisting of 278 flats is already completed. Third party interest is also created. So far as commercial project is concerned respondent No.42 has filed an affidavit of one Mr.S.P.Nair, authorized signatory of Vascon Engineers Ltd. (erstwhile Vascon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No.42). It is stated erstwhile Zircon Ventures is the joint venture in 3 the form of an association of persons formed between respondent Nos. 42 and 40. It is further stated that Zircon Ventures by an agreement for sale dated 16.10.06 has sold to Dawnay Day Hotels Pune Private Limited all land admeasuring about 6225 sq. mtrs. out of the suit land. It is also affirmed that Zircon Ventures has already received part consideration from the said Dawnay Day Hotels Pune Private Limited. The Zircon Ventures have completed construction of two concrete slabs above the plinth level and two basements. 6. Thus the construction of the building for residential purpose is already completed and the construction of commercial project is almost completed. In both the projects third party interests have been also created by respondents 38 to 42. 7. The respondent Nos. 38 to 42 have invested huge amounts in the construction of residential as well commercial projects. The suit was filed in the year 2005. Though the application below Ex.5 for interim injunction was filed thereafter the appellants did not insist for hearing of the application at Ex.5 immediately after filing of the suit. Consequently they allowed the respondents 38 to 42 to invest huge amounts for constructions of the buildings. Taking over all circumstances into consideration, in my view, the trial Court correctly held that the appellants failed to prove irreparable loss and the balance convenience in their favour. I do not find any error which calls for interference in the aforesaid appeal from order. Hence appeal from order stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 4 8. At this stage Mr.Kapadia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that respondent Nos. 38 to 40 and 42 be directed to deposit the money payable to the respondent No.1- Company of which the appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 are the directors. Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 38 to 40 however submitted that already entire payment is made and therefore there is no need to give any direction in this regard. Since the prayer of deposit was not made in the trial Court or dealt with by the trial Court the appellants are at liberty to make an appropriate application before the trial Court. In the event of appellants making such application the trial Court shall dispose of the same independently and on its own merit. 9. Looking to the nature of case, in my view, the dispute pending before the trial Court deserves to be decided expeditiously in the interest of justice. Hence the trial Court is directed to dispose of the special civil Suit No.1202/05 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say that the parties shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 15.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 5