1 ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9631 OF 2009 Shri Jagadish Prasad Meghraj Gaur. .. Petitioner. Vs Jagadish Harishchandra Kiri & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Santosh Narwade i/by M/s. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dandekar for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2010 P.C: . This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Original Plaintiff. The Petitioner has purchased a flat from a builder and developer. According to the Petitioner, by an Agreement dated 21st March, 2002, he has purchased a parking space from the builder and the developer and that the said parking space has been specifically demarcated on the Plan annexed to the Agreement for Sale. It is contended that the parking space was enclosed by the said builder by a side wall and iron gate. An objection raised by the Respondents who are other flat purchasers. On the basis of the said objection, the Municipal Council had demolished the said side wall and iron gate on 17th May, 2007. 2 The case made out in the suit is that the Respondents who are the other flat purchasers in the same building are parking their vehicles in such a manner that it was impossible for the Petitioner to use the parking space which he has purchased. Therefore, a suit for perpetual injunction was filed by the Petitioner. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed which was rejected by the Trial Court. An appeal against the said order has been dismissed. These are the orders under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the agreement executed by the builder and the developer clearly creates an exclusive right of using the parking space in favour of the Petitioner. He submitted that the Courts below were unnecessarily influenced by the orders passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum inasmuch as by the said order, the builder was directed to pay damages. He submitted that the result of the order passed by the Forum is not that the Petitioner has lost his right in respect of the parking space and, therefore, the said order was no ground to reject the prayer for injunction. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. In the Plaint, the Petitioner claims that he has acquired a parking space from the builder and the developer and that the said parking space was enclosed by a wall. The plaint also discloses that the wall was demolished by the Municipal Council on the ground that the same was illegal. It is pertinent to note 3 that in the complaint filed by the Petitioner before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, the Petitioner contended that out of the total consideration agreed to be paid by the Petitioner, a sum of Rs.24,426/- is towards the exclusive parking space. In the complaint, he has stated that the builder has taken an extra amount of Rs.78,000/- from the Petitioner towards the parking space. It is stated that the builder has shown the parking space enclosed by an independent wall and an iron wall gate. It is pointed out that the other flat purchasers started objecting to the said parking space of the Petitioner and ultimately the wall and the iron gate were demolished by the Municipal Council. While allowing the complaint, the District Consumer Redressal Forum observed that the Petitioner could not produce any document to show that he has paid a sum of Rs.78,000/-. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid by the builder to the Petitioner under the order of the Consumer Redressal Forum. 4. The plaint proceeds on the footing that the Petitioner has exclusive right to use a particular parking space. The other flat purchasers who are the Defendants have objected to use of the parking space by the Petitioner to the exclusion of other flat purchasers. The Petitioner will have to establish his exclusive right by leading evidence. In the light of the judgment of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, the Courts below were justified in declining to grant the discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction in favour of the Petitioner against the other flat 4 purchasers. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. It is made clear that the observations made by the Courts below and by this Court are only tentative observations made for the limited purposes of considering the prayer for grant of interim relief and the same may not be construed to mean that an adjudication has been made on merits of the suit. All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J)