1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 687 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3012 OF 2006 Immacus P.Dias & Anr. .. Appellants. Vs. Maurice Miranda & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Charanjeet Chandarpaul for the appellants. Mr. M. Anuj Narula i/by M/s. Jhangiani Narula and Associates for the Respondents. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. : The appellants have filed a suit for a declaration that they along with respondent no. 1 (original defendant in the suit ) and others are the owners of the suit property and for a declaration that the deed 2 of conveyance dated 5.8.2005 executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2 is null and void. The appellants took out a notice of motion for interim relief to restrain the respondents from parting with possession or creating any third party rights in the said property and also for appointment of a Court Receiver. By an order dated 9.7.2008, the notice of motion was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The suit property has been declared as a slum and scheme for development thereof was sanctioned by the appellate authority under the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopments), Act 1971. The appellants preferred an appeal to challenge the declaration of the suit land as a slum. The said appeal was dismissed by the Maharashtra Slum Tribunal by its order dated 22.12.2006. The appellants have challenged the order of the Tribunal by preferring Writ Petition No. 3045 of 2007 which has been admitted and hearing of which is expedited. The appellants had made an application for similar interim relief in the writ petition which has been disposed of with an order that further actions by the respondents would be subject to the final out-come in the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order after noting all the proceedings filed by the appellants and the orders passed therein has observed that admittedly under the scheme, rehabilitation units were also to be constructed. They were constructed and parties 3 have been put in possession of their respective units. In these circumstances, it would be inequitable to restrain the respondents from dealing with the sale component. The learned Single Judge has further observed that in a scheme such as this the right to deal with the sale component / free sale component is a part and parcel of the entire scheme and refused interim orders to the appellants. 4. In our opinion, there is no error or illegality in the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ( J. N. PATEL, J) ( SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)