SANJAY GULAB BHOIR Vs. GAYATREE SKYSCRAPPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, Appellants/Plaintiffs challenge order dtd. 19/10/2019 passed by 17th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, rejecting Appellants/Plaintiffs' application at Exhibit-5 for grant of temporary injunction.

(2.) The Appellants/Plaintiffs have instituted Special Civil Suit No. 1644 of 2017 against Defendant No. 1 (Developer) and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (Partners) for allotment of flats alongwith car parking as agreed under the Development Agreement as well as for recovery of amount of Rs.81,78,000.00towards loss of income on account of delay in handing over the constructed portion grantable under the Development Agreement. The suit is filed for specific performance of the Development Agreement dtd. 15/9/2012 under which the Developers agreed to grant 50% of the constructed residential flats to the Appellants/Plaintiffs towards consideration for grant of development rights in the land in question. Appellants/Plaintiffs alleged that despite completion of the building, the Developer failed to handover 50% constructed residential flats to the Appellants/Plaintiffs, which necessitated for institution of the suit. In their suit Appellants/Plaintiffs filed application at Exhibit-5 seeking temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from selling any other flat to any customer without first handing over the entitled area of constructed flats to the Appellants/Plaintiffs under the Development Agreement. By the impugned order dtd. 19/10/2019 the Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction.

(3.) One of the main grounds that weighed with the Trial Court for rejecting the application for temporary injunction was statement made on behalf of the Defendants that they had kept aside 16 flats for being handed over to the Appellants/Plaintiffs, which would satisfy their entitlements under the Development Agreement. By accepting that statement made by the Defendants, the Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application for temporary injunction holding that since the rights of the Appellants/Plaintiffs have been secured in the form of keeping aside 16 flats, there was no necessity of granting any injunction against the Defendants from selling other flats.