1 AO-673-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.673 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 902 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1848 OF 2010 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 1339 OF 2010 M/s. Mishra Builder and Developers ... Appellant vs. Smt.Kusum Shivram Shinde & Ors. ... Respondents Shri A.A.Kumbhakoni, i/b. R.O.Pathak,Advocate for the appellant. Shri Manoj Mhatre, Advocate, for the respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Shri S.B. Amin and R.S. Gobse, Advocate, for respondent No.3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 13th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. The original defendant No.1 has preferred this appeal against the grant of temporary injunction in Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs in Suit No.1339 of 2010. 2. According to the plaintiffs, under a development agreement of 1999, they had given their land to the defendant No.1 for development for consideration of Rs.22 lakh. Defendant No.1 took possession of the land and 2 AO-673-11.sxw made payment of Rs.3.5 lakh. No payment was made thereafter. As the plaintiffs were insisting for payment in February, 2005, Ramdhari Mishra, Managing Parter of the Defendant No.1, put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit shop with understanding that as soon as the balance amount of consideration is paid the plaintiffs would vacate the possession of the suit shop. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit shop since then. As the defendant No.1 was threatening to take forcible possession, the plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction and by the said Notice of Motion sought temporary injunction pending the suit. Only defence of the defendant No.1 is that no such oral agreement had taken place nor he had put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit shop and that the plaintiffs are not even in possession. The trial Court did not accept the defence and holding that the plaintiffs are, prima facie, in possession of the suit shop, granted temporary injunction. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel and perusal of documents, I find substance in the contention of the plaintiffs that as per oral arrangement,they were put in possession of the suit shop in February 2005, because the defendant No.1 has not paid the consideration amount since 1999. As per the agreement, the defendant N.1 was to pay Rs.22 lakh as consideration, while it has paid only Rs. 3.5 lakh according to the plaintiffs. The protection given by the trial Court is only 3 AO-673-11.sxw against dispossession without following due process of law. Therefore, the defendant No.1 is at liberty to make payment and take back possession or seek appropriate remedy under law for taking back possession. 4. In view of the above circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore,the Appeal and the Application stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)