JUDGMENT:- Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, having considered the nature of the appeal from order and controversy brought to the Court.

2. Admit. By consent taken up for final disposal.

3. The appellants are plaintiffs in the Special Civil Suit No.90 of 2008 ("suit"). which was filed in the month of March. 2008. This suit has been followed by an application Exhibit 5 under section 94 read with Order 39. Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code ("CPC"). In this suit, there are two defendants, who are present respondents in this appeal. Parties. Hereinafter, are being referred to their original status in the suit.

4. The trial court after hearing the parties, rejected the application for temporary injunction. Plaintiffs in their application for temporary injunction had made two fold prayer in prayer clause (B). Firstly, respondents (defendants) be restrained by an order of temporary injunction from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest on immovable properties, situated at Osmanpura. Aurangabad, which are more specifically detailed in the prayer clause (B) of the application for temporary injunction. This temporary injunction application, after hearing the parties, came to be rejected by the trial court. Apart from these two fold prayers, one more prayer is made at prayer clause (D) to the effect that respondents I and 2 by way of temporary injunction be restrained from causing obstruction, interference and disturbance in the peaceful possession and development activities of applicant No.1 over the suit properties as mentioned hereinabove, till final disposal of the suit. Thus, the original plaintiffs are before this Court.

5. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about two development agreements (registered documents), two irrevocable power of attorneys (registered documents), deed of clarification (registered documents) and exchange of notice in between the parties. There is also no dispute regarding description of the properties.

Shri. Shah, learned Sr. Advocate with these undisputed facts, invited my attention to the first written communication amongst the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. It is the notice to plaintiffs through Advocate on 22.3.2005. Advocate for appellants submits that defendant No.1 had accepted liability and responsibility for eviction of the tenants in the property. In support of his submission, he invited my attention to paragraph No.3 of the notice dated 22.3.2005, page 49 of the compilation. In substance, it has been stated in paragraph No.3 that there are tenants in the property, subject matter of development and those tenants were to be evicted from the property. The responsibility of evicting the tenants is no doubt on defendant. No.1. It is further mentioned that there is a specific clause in the development agreement that a reasonable amount that may be required for vacating the tenanted premises will be paid by the developer (plaintiff) and those amounts would be deducted from the constructed sellable area to be allotted to defendant No.1. Shri. Shah, Senior Advocate has also invited my attention to notice, reply and various clauses of the development agreements, power of attorneys etc.. He submitted that there is an utter failure on the part of •defendant No.1 to evict the tenants. According to him, even the details are not furnished by defendant No.1 as to how many tenants are there and was there any negotiations amongst defendant No.1 and tenants for eviction of the property etc. No efforts have been put into by defendant No.1 seeking eviction of tenants. It is a matter of common knowledge that unless tenants are evicted from the suit property, consisting of old construction, it cannot be handed over or made available to the plaintiffs to carry out development activities and development agreements could not have been materialised. According to him, parties are warring on a point as to who has committed breach of the agreement. The plaintiffs a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document