1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9122 OF 2009 M/s.Raisol Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner. Vs. Laxmibai Rajaram Gundka & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.J.M.D’Silva for the petitioner. Mr.S.P.Thorat for respondent no.3 to 11. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court by which the appeal from order, filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed and the order dated 13.1.2009 passed on the application at Exhibit-5 in Dispute No.274 of 2008 by the Co-operative Court has been set aside. There is no dispute that construction of the flats of respondent nos.1 to 11 is in progress and construction of 3-4 bungalows have already been completed. The petitioner claims to be a developer. There was development agreement between the petitioner and the society which according to the society, has been terminated. The petitioner has not instituted any proceedings either in the co-operative court or in the civi l court against the society or its 2 members till this date. Against this backdrop I have perused the impugned judgments and more particularly the following paragraph in the order of the appellate court: “In my opinion even though the development agreement is cancelled, as per decision of the General Body meeting dt.1/12/2008, appellants are still entitled to have interim relief in their favour till decision of the dispute, because they have made out prima facie case to prove that the plots were allotted to them by MHADA and the same are in their actual possession. They are holding share certificates in respect of the respective plots and their names are in the list of members annexed to the lease deed at Exh.3/5. They hold possession slip Exh.3/3 and got sanctioned the building plans from the P.M.C. And the P.M.C. issued commencement certificate in their favour which is at Exh.3/5 and commencement letter dt.21/4/2008 issued by the P.M.C. and permission is granted to them for construction. Since they have proved strong prima facie case, it was necessary on the part of trial court to grant interim reliefs, so that they can put construction on their respective plots and there should not be any obstruction from the respondents disturbing their possession and further creating any third party right and interest in respect of their plots. I find from the impugned order that most of the findings of the trial Court goes in favour of the appellants. However, the trail court just considering that the development agreement and power of attorney executed in favour of respondent 3 no.3 and 4 is cancelled as per resolution of Special General Body meeting dt. 1/12/2008, rejected the interim reliefs which in fact ought to have been granted in favour of the appellants.” 3. Having considered the observations made in the aforesaid paragraph in the order of the appellate court, I do not find any reason warranting interference by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it is made clear that construction of the flats would be subject to outcome of the dispute pending before the co-operative court. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)