1 caf1732-11 rpa FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1732 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/b. M/s. Deepak Chitnis-Chiparikar & Co. for the Applicant. Mr. S. A. Sawant a/w. Mr. Sachin Kadam i/b. Mr. D. A. Barat for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JUNE 8, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant (appellant). The applicant is the original defendant. The trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent in terms of prayer clause (b). The prayer in this application is for stay of the execution of the decree. 2. Relevant part of the impugned Judgment and decree reads thus: 2 caf1732-11 “Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (b) of the plaint, to the extent of C.T.S. No. 213 i.e. Survey No.99, Hissa No.13, rest of the suit is dismissed.” Prayer clause (b) of the plaint reads thus: “(b) that the Defendants, their Director, servants and agents be restrained by permanent order of injunction of this Hon'ble Court from putting any construction of whatsoever nature of developing the suit premises viz. agricultural land bearing Survey No,99, C.T.S. No.213 Hissa No.13, admeasuring 669.4 sq. meters and another agricultural land bearing Survey No.99, C.T.S.No. 206, Hissa No.15, admeasuring 2089.9 sq. meters, situated at M.G. Raod, Bhandar Pakhadi, Kandivali (West), Mumbai – 400 068.” 3. The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant is that decree of injunction which prevents the applicant from developing the property deserves to be stayed in as much as by utilizing the FSI of the said property, construction of a building consisting of 11 floors has been already carried out by the applicant. He submitted that construction has 3 caf1732-11 been carried out before passing the decree. His submission is that on the basis of the decree, the municipal corporation is likely to take action of demolition. 4. Suffice to say that the decree will operate from the date on which the same has been passed. Grant of stay will virtually amount to granting final relief at this stage which in the facts of the case cannot be done. 5. If Municipal Corporation has taken any action against applicant on the basis of the impugned decree in respect of construction carried out prior to passing of the decree, it is for the applicant to challenge the action in accordance with law. 6. Subject to what is observed above, the application is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J. ]