1 ao95-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FOR ORDER NO. 95 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2010 M/s. Chamunda Developers Through its proprietor .. Appellant v/s. Chandar D. Patil (Since deceased through his LR's) Dnyaneshwar Chandar Patil & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Mr. N. V. Walawalkar i/b. Mr. Jeetendra Sachev for the Appellant. Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Sachin Shetye for Respondent Nos.2,3 and 4. Mr. V. S. Kapse for Respondent No.5. .... CORAM : R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATE : JULY 20, 2010. P.C. This Appeal is directed against order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, rejecting appellant’s Applications Exhibits 5 and 40A, and refusing injunction prayed for by the appellant. 2. The appellant is a developer who claimed to have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to 2 ao95-10 as MOU, for short) on 17th March, 2005 with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for development of the property in respect of land which was to be allotted to defendant nos. 1 to 3 by defendant no.4, CIDCO, in lieu of land of defendant nos. 1 to 3 which has been acquired by CIDCO. The appellant claimed to have paid the lease money to CIDCO. The appellant then filed a suit, after issuing a notice, for restraining defendant nos. 1 to 3 from entering into any agreements with other third parties. However, the defendants came with the case that defendant nos. 1 to 3 had already entered in to a development agreement with defendant no. 5 on 19th January, 2004. Therefore, defendant no. 5 came to be joined as a party. Thereafter application Exhibit 40 came to be filed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant states that appellant has already registered the lis, and therefore, all the prospective purchasers would have a notice that transaction which they may be entering into would be subject to the decision of the lis. Since the property is situated outside Mumbai, registration is optional and section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act sufficiently protects the plaintiff. Registration of lis adds to the protection. 4. Respondents themselves entered into a tripartited 3 ao95-10 agreement between the allottes of defendant nos. 2 and 3 on the one part, defendant no. 5, the developer on the other part, and CIDCO on the third part. This agreement was registered on 2nd February, 2009. In this agreement clause 5 has been inserted stating that the agreement is executed subject to the pending litigation namely Special Civil Suit No. 773 of 2008, and subject to the orders that may be passed in such a pending litigation. 5. In view of this, it is clear that defendant no.5 will be able to pass on interests to the transferees only subject to clause 5 of this agreement. Therefore, the interests of the appellant is duly protected. Interests of the prospective buyers also may be protected by asking defendant no.5 to insert a similar clause if he enters into any agreement dated 2nd February, 2009 with the prospective buyers, banks etc. 6. With this modification, the impugned order is maintained. 7. The Appeal is, therefore, disposed of. 4 ao95-10 8. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 145 of 2010, does not survive, and is disposed of accordingly. [ R. C. CHAVAN, J. ]