1 (WP 9898 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9898 OF 2010 The Vishwakarma Nagar CHS Ltd. ...Petitioners Vs. Nalinkant Mukundray Dave & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Vineet Naik i/b. S.R. Kulkarni for Petitioners Mr. Prashant Naik and Chandra Naik for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard. The only relief claimed by he Petitioner in this petition is a direction, directing the Co-operative Court No.4 to pass appropriate orders and dispose of the interim application filed in Dispute No.CC-IV/85 of 2010 and to dispose of the same expeditiously. 2.The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that orders which were passed by this Court, were misinterpreted and the Learned Trial Court was pleased to stay the hearing of the interim application by order dated 15th September, 2010. It was submitted that this Court in Civil Application No. 2606 of 2010 in 2 (WP 9898 of 2010) W.P. No. 2803 of 2010 was pleased to clarify that the said position by passing the aforesaid orders. “In the above circumstances, I dispose of the civil application by giving clarification that the order dated 7th April, 2010 passed by me in above writ petitions shall not be construed as stay to the further proceedings of Dispute No. 85 of 2010 and /or 307 of 2009 or Appeal from Order No. 35 of 2010. The trial Court is at liberty to hear the Interim Application filed by the Society in Dispute No.85 of 2010 independently on its own merits and without being influenced in any manner by the order passed by this Court on 7th April, 2010.” It was therefore, submitted that by virtue of the said clarification, which is given by the Learned Single Judge of this Court, there is no impediment for expediting the hearing of the said application. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondent, however, 3 (WP 9898 of 2010) submitted that in the civil application two prayers were made. However, pray clause (b) was not granted. Prayer clause (b) which reads as under: “(b) that the Co-operative Court No. 4, Mumbai be directed to decide the interim application in case No. CC-IV/85 of 2010 expeditiously.” Secondly, it was submitted that the cause of action arising in the appeal and in the dispute filed by the Respondents and the cause of action in the dispute filed by the Society is almost same and, therefore, no order could be passed by the Trial Court in the dispute filed by the society in Dispute No. CC-IV/85 of 2010. 4. It is not possible to accept the submissions. So far as the first submission is concerned, though a specific order of allowing the civil application in terms of prayer clause (b) is not granted, a specific direction is given to the Trial Court to decide the interim application filed in Dispute No.CC-IV/85 of 2010. So far as second submission is concerned, i.e. submission on merits, the Trial Court, in Dispute No. CC-IV/85 of 2010 shall 4 (WP 9898 of 2010) consider the submissions made by the counsels appearing on behalf of both the sides and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. It has to be noted here that 71 members of the society consisting of 79 members have already vacated their premises and are residing in an alternate premises. Only about 8 members have refused to join the redevelopment of the society on various grounds and have not yet vacated their flats. The developer has already demolished two wings and further redevelopment is stopped on account of the dispute raised by these eight members. It is obvious that after having obtained interim orders, these eight members obviously, in my view, are trying to stall the redevelopment work. The Trial Court shall also take into consideration this aspect and accordingly decide the application expeditiously within a period of four weeks from today. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)