1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 924 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1112 OF 2008 Shri Ratnakar Chandrakant Tupe : Appellant versus M/s.Dhaval Properties and others : Respondents. Shri. Y.A.Sakhare, i/by M/s.YKS Legal for the Appellant. Shri.Vijay Killedar for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Appeal from Order arises out of the order dated 7th August 2008 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by which order the Application (Exhibit-5) filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff for injunction against the Respondents/Defendants came to be rejected. 2 2. The Plaintiff had entered into a development agreement with the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein on 4th November 2003. In terms of the said development agreement the Plaintiff was to receive an amount of Rs.47,25,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was received by the Plaintiff as earnest money. The balance consideration was to be paid within 18 months. In terms of the said development agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.4 to 9 were to obtain permissions of the various authorities connected with the said development. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the balance consideration has not been paid by the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein. 3. It is the case of the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 that they had paid the entire consideration and that they had to incur expenditure for obtaining permissions under the ULC Act and the Tenancy Act which amount has been adjusted by them against the consideration payable to the Plaintiff. 4. The trial Court on the perusal of the said development 3 agreement has recorded a finding that the time was not the essence of the contract. The trial Court has observed that there is not a single statement made in the said agreement that the Plaintiff intended to sell the said property as he had to construct his house or to purchase another land from the balance consideration. The trial Court on the basis that the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.4 to 9 had parted with the possession of the suit land to the Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, who had put up a huge construction on the suit land, has recorded a finding that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought, as any relief granted to the Plaintiff at the said stage would prejudicially affect the Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the matter of carrying out the development. The trial Court has observed that if the Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 have committed a breach of the agreement, the Plaintiff can be compensated in terms of money. 5. Having perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court, in my view, no case for interference is made out. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 4 6. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.1112 of 2008 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]