Per P.B. Majmudar, J.

Since it is agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that this appeal can be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself, we have heard the matter on merits at length forthwith. Hence admitted. Learned counsel and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respective parties appear and waive notice of admission.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 21st July, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 7389 of 2008 by which the writ petition filed by the present appellants has been dismissed by the learned single Judge. The said writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging an order passed by the Judge, Cooperative Court No. IV at Mumbai, dated 12th September, 2008 in C.CIV/ 96/08 by which the Cooperative Court declined to grant any interim relief sought by the present appellants in the said dispute. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, in A.O. No. 112 of 2008 and the Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 3rd October, 2008 against which, as stated above, the writ petition was filed before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition and confirmed the order passed by both the authorities below.

3. The learned single Judge also observed in the order that in case the dispute filed by the present appellants is allowed by the Cooperative Court, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will not be permitted to claim any equity even if they proceed with the development work. This direction has been given by the learned single Judge as the writ petition was filed before the learned single Judge was against an interlocutory order by which interim relief was not granted by the Cooperative Court in favour of the present appellants. During the pendency of the writ petition, Mumbai Area and Housing Development Board (“MHADA”) had initiated proceedings on 27th February, 2009 under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter the “said Act of 1976”)for summary eviction of the appellants with a view to see that the development work may proceed as per the No Objection Certificated granted by MHADA. Initially, the order of summary eviction issued by MHADA was challenged by the appellants by way of Writ Petition (Lodging ) No. 431 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13th April, 2009, held that MHADA was competent to issue such eviction order under Section 95A of the said Act of 1976. Against the dismissal of the said writ petition, the appellants had preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP (Civil) No. 10173/2009. The Supreme Court has disposed of the said SLP on 9th April, 2010. The said order of the Supreme Court reads thus:

“Leave granted. The appellants herein were the petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 431 /2009 on the file of the Bombay High Court. In the said writ petition, the appellants challenged a notice dated 27.2.2009 issued by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA, the first respondent herein) requiring them to shift from their respective tenaments in Goregaon Unnati Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (4th respondent) within 48 hours from the receipt of that notice, failing which action will be taken to shift them summarily at their risk and cost. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ petition by the impugned order dated 13.4.2009.

2. It may be mentioned that the appellants had filed a more comprehensive petition, W.P. No. 7389/2008, before the High Court wherein they have challenged the order dated 12.9.2008 of the Cooperative Court No.4, Mumbai whereby their applications for interim relief was rejected and the order dated 3.10.2008 made by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai affirming the said rejection.

3. When the special leave petition seeking leave