1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.135 OF 2008 Someshwar G. Pardeshi .. Petitioner Versus Naeem Riaz Khan & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.J.S.Deo for petitioner Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr.Yadunath Choudhari for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17th January 2008 P.C. . This petition is filed by the original plaintiff/appellant before the lower appellate court. He is aggrieved by the orders passed by 2 the lower appellate court dismissing his appeal and confirming the order of the trial court refusing interim injunction as prayed. 2. Mr.Choudhari appears for respondent No.3 and Mr.Kanetkar appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, developer. Respondent No.3 is one of the owners. Mr.Deo appearing for petitioner states that respondent No.6 is the power of attorney holder for respondent Nos. 3 to 9, who are original owners and he has been duly served. Affidavit proving service is filed. Mr.Choudhari on instructions states that the owners have already terminated development agreement with the Developer and the civil suit in that respect is pending. There is no development work at site. Everything is at stand still. Therefore, he states that there is no basis for the apprehension that the petitioner would be dispossessed without due process of law. 3 3. Mr.Kanetkar appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has no instructions. In the light of the statement made by Mr.Choudhari appearing for one of the owners and considering the fact that the civil suit is pending, in my view, it is not necessary to enter into any larger controversy. In the light of this development at site, petitioner is not likely to be dispossessed. Even if there is any further development, needless to state that the owners can dispossess the petitioner only by taking recourse to law. Petition disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)