1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.631 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.809 OF 2010 Smt.Hansa alias Hemlata Chintaman ..Appellant Patil V/s. M/s.Ravi Developments ..Respondents & anr. Ms.Gauri Godse, Advocate, for the Appellant None for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE, 2010 P.C. . The Appellant questions the Order passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, whereby he rejected her Application for an injunction to restrain the Defendants i.e. M/s. Ravi Developments and Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation from utilizing the TDR in respect of the property bearing Old Survey No.123 (New Survey No.499) and raising construction on Survey Nos.125 and 126. 2. The properties belong to one Dadu 2 Narayan Patil, who left behind heirs including the Appellant. The other heirs seem to have entered into an Agreement with Respondent No.1 way back in the year 1994, after a Public Notice was issued and there was correspondence between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 in respect of the said Agreement. Thereafter, according to the Appellant, in December, 2007 i. e. almost two years after the first round of dispute ultimately came to an end, the Appellant claims to have obtained latest 7/12th extract before filing present suit, out of which the injunction Application arises. She claims 1/11th share in the suit property. In the background of these facts, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Judge erred in refusing to grant ad-interim relief, holding that the Appellant neither proved prima facie case nor that balance of convenience lay in her favour. The Plaintiff's 1/11th share in the suit property could be carved out finally if she succeeds and it is not necessary that 3 the Plaintiff must be given a parcel of land and a share in TDR. She could as well be compensated monetarily. 3. In view of this, no case for interference is made out. Appeal from Order is dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of. 5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks extension of interim order which was in operation till Application Exhibit 5 was decided by the Trial Court in respect of TDR. There is no case for extension of such an order since TDR is ultimately convertible in money and the Appellant would be compensated for her share in TDR, if she succeeds. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) 4