1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The contentious issue whether the Promoter/Developer has made a true and full disclosure of the entire scheme and is consequently entitled to put up construction in the plot in question has once again engaged the attention of this Court.

3. The Petitioner No.1 is a Society comprising of 288 flat purchasers of the 9 buildings developed by the Joint Venture i.e. the Respondent No.1, of one M/s. Vascon Engineers Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Sreemangal Pristine Builders, the Petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 03/02/2014 passed by the learned District Judge-17 Pune by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioner-Society being Misc. Civil Appeal No.498 of 2012 came to be dismissed and resultantly, the dismissal of the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit 5) by the Trial Court by order dated 09/11/2012 came to be confirmed. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff, The Respondent No.1 is the original Defendant No.1 and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 111 are the original owners of the suit plot and who are the Defendant Nos. 2 to 111 in the suit in question.

4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Petition can, in brief, be stated thus:-

The Respondent No.1 herein, as indicated above, which is a Joint Venture of Sreemangal Pristine Builders and M/s. Vascon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. has undertaken development of the property being Survey No.197 Hissa No.3 totally admeasuring about 4 Hector 37 Ares i.e. 43700 sq.mtrs. The development of the said property was commenced sometime in the year 2005 pursuant to the commencement certificate No.CC/4080/04 dated 31/01/2005. The said property was divided into two plots i.e. Plot No.1 admeasuring 12238 sq.mtrs. and Plot No.2 admeasuring 31461.78 sq.mtrs. The controversy in the Suit in question is in respect of the development of Plot No.2. In the said Plot No. 2 as per the sanctioned layout 12 buildings were proposed. The development was commenced and the construction of 9 buildings was completed and the completion certificate in respect of the said 9 buildings was obtained on 31/03/2008. The Petitioner Society came to be registered in respect of the flat purchasers of the said 9 buildings on 18/04/2009. On the registration of the Society it seems that the Respondent No.1 herein i.e. the Defendant No.1 to the Suit handed over the management and surrendered all the accounts to the Managing Committee of the Society. It appears that the Society sometime in the year 2008 sought a copy of the last revised sanctioned layout plan dated 13/6/2008 (wrongly referred to as 10/06/2008). The copy of the said plan was accordingly furnished to the Society. In the said plan there is a mention of 9 buildings and one covered car parking with open space. On 19/7/2012 the Respondent No.1 informed the Society that it is intending to start construction of the 10th building in the said Plot No.2 and on the Respondent No.1 sending construction material in the Society premises, the Society resisted the same by obstructing the entry of the vehicles of the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 again on 16/08/2012 and 24/08/2012 informed the Society that it is intending to start construction of the 10th building in Plot No.2 and requested the Society to arrange a meeting in that behalf. Since it is the case of the Society that 10th building is sought to be constructed in the area earmarked for closed car parking as per last sanctioned layout plan dated 13/06/2008, the Society along with its two office bearers filed the Suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.6087 of 2012.

5. The said Suit as can be seen from the reading of the plaint is founded on the fact that in the last revised sanctioned layout plan dated 13/06/2008 there is a mention of only 9 buildings and one covered car parking and the open space. Hence as per the said revised sanctioned layout plan particular area is earma