-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1188 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1188 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1188 OF 2008 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1446 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1446 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1446 OF 2008 IN A.O. NO. 1188 OF 2008 Navdurga Welfare Society .. Appellants. Keshavlal Harilal Tank (Org.Plaintiff) V/s. M/s. Shah Housecone Pvt.Ltd., .. Respondents. --- Mr.D.C. Nair i/by M/s. N.Deepak & Co. for Appellants. Mr.R.M.Pandey for the Respondents. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 13th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 13th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 13th APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff in S.C.Suit No. 1670 of 2008, which is filed for declaration that the respondents/defendants are bound to hand over 155 flats/tenements, temples and office premises to the appellants -plaintiffs vide agreement dated 23.12.2004. Further declaration is claimed against the respondents/defendants that they have no right, title and -: 2 :- power to sell the tenements in question to private party in building no. 16 and receive the consideration. The appellant -plaintiff also filed notice of motion at Exh. 2 for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from selling or disposing of by private sale, any of the flats of the suit premises and building no. 16 in which FSI/TDR has been used by the respondents and restraining them from demolishing Chawl no.A and from making further construction on the suit premises and building no.16. 3. It is not disputed by both the learned counsel that out of 156 occupants, 132 are eligible under the SRA Scheme. The respondent in para 8 of the reply has stated that out of 132 eligible occupants, 101 occupants have already been provided with permanent alternative accommodation as per SRA Scheme in the rehab building nos. 4, 7,8 and 10 and they have surrendered their respective accommodation for demolition. It is further stated that out of the remaining occupants/ slum dwellers 10 are occupying their original tenements and they will surrender the same on being provided with permanent accommodation. It is further stated that the remaining 21 eligible slum dwellers who have been shifted to the transit accommodation, are being paid compensation for transit accommodation. In view of the above facts it is submitted -: 3 :- by the learned counsel for the respondents that the scheme is already been implemented. The above statement of fact is not disputed by the appellant -plaintiff. The trial court also recorded similar finding of fact in para 18 of the impugned order and concluded that the appellant-plaintiff could not make out prima facie case. It was also held that the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the appellant and therefore, refusal of interim injunction will not result in irreparable loss. 4. In the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above paras, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any substance the same is therefore, dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, nothing survives in the civil application and the same is also disposed of as such. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....