IMPORTANT POINT
In joint development agreements involving multiple landowners as shareholders, individual landowners cannot unilaterally withdraw from the agreement without jeopardizing the entire project, and the court must consider the balance of convenience and potential irreparable harm when deciding on temporary injunctions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

2. This Appeal is fled challenging order dtd. 3/10/2022 passed by the 11th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune rejecting Appellant-Plaintiff's application at Exibit-5 for grant of temporary injunction and allowing application fled by the Respondents-Defendants at Exhibit-34 granting temporary injunction in favour of the Defendants by restraining Plaintiff from obstructing Defendants' possession of the suit property.

3. The Appellant-Plaintiff is carrying out a phasewise development of large land parcel admeasuring 274.6977 hectares in Village-Nanded and 4.5847 hectares in VillageKhadakwasla, Taluka-Haveli, District-Pune in pursuance of Notifcation dtd. 23/1/2008 issued by the State Government under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for development of township named "Nanded City". A joint Development Agreement dtd. 20/4/2011 came to be executed with the RespondentsDefendants in respect of land admeasuring 2100 sq.mtrs (21 Ares) at Survey No.57, Hissa No.3A (Part) and Survey No.57, Hissa No.5(Part)at Village-Nanded. A Power of Attorney dtd. 20/4/2011 is also executed by the Defendants in Plaintiff's favour empowering it to do various acts and deeds for development of the suit property. Under the Agreement, the consideration payable to the Defendants is proportionate to their land holdings covered by the Project. Their land holding in the total project which is 0.08%. Commensurate to their land holding, the Defendants are entitled to receive monetary consideration in the form of 30% sale proceeds from built up area and 60% sale proceeds from lay out plots. It appears that in pursuance of the Development Agreement, so far Plaintiff has allotted to the Defendants, four fats and one shop (additional area of the shop being purchased by one of the Defendants). According to Plaintiffs as on 10/5/2021, the Defendants were entitled to receive total amount of Rs.1, 40, 98, 452.69 corresponding to their 0.08% proft share whereas they were granted proft to the tune of Rs.3, 30, 64.945.72 in the form of constructed fats and shops and payments made. It appears that the Defendants desired allotment of a developed plot admeasuring 3 Ares/5 Ares and Plaintiff expressed inability to allot the same. This has apparently caused disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

4. Plaintiff has instituted Special Civil Suit No. 1245/2021 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division against the Defendants for specifc performance of Joint Development Agreement dtd. 20/4/2011 and also for seeking a permanent injunction from obstructing the Plaintiffs from development of the suit property. In its suit, the Plaintiff fled application at Exhibit-5 for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from obstructing development of the suit property or disturbing possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property as well as for restraining the Defendants from creating third party rights in the suit property. In addition to defending the suit fled by Plaintiff, the Defendants have instituted a counterclaim for cancellation of Joint Development Agreement dtd. 20/4/2011 and for restraining the Plaintiff from disturbing Defendants' possession over the suit property. In their counterclaim, the Defendants fled application at Exhibit-34 seeking temporary injunction against Plaintiff from disturbing Defendants' possession over the suit property. The Trial Court has proceeded to reject Plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction at Exhibit-5, while it has allowed the Defendants' application at Exhibit-34 and has granted temporary injunction restraining Plaintiff from disturbing the Defendants' possession over the suit property. The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court on 3/10/2022 and has fled the present Appeal.

5. Mr. Godbole, the learned senior advocate would appear o