Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta, Ms. Mitaali Shah
For the Respondents: Mr. Gauraj Shah, Mr. Siddhant Sawhney, Mr. Tejas Shah, Mr. Rajiv Narula, Ms. Mehek Chowdhary, Mr. Tarang Jagtiani, Mr. Ravindra Sirsikar

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The appeal was filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging an order dated 15th May 2017 by the City Civil Court (!) .

2. The case involves a tenant ownership housing society ("Bonaventure") and the builder/promoter ("Rahul Developments") with the defendant claiming sole ownership (!) .

3. The plaintiffs sought declarations regarding their entitlement to develop the land, challenged the validity of permissions issued for the construction, and requested the demolition of the building if constructed unlawfully (!) .

4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs sought interim reliefs including injunctions to prevent third-party rights, construction activities, and issuance of occupation certificates, as well as the appointment of a Court Receiver (!) .

5. The construction of "Bonaventure" was completed between 2012 and 2013, with flats sold to bona fide purchasers during 2009-2013 (!) .

6. The court declined to grant interim reliefs because the reliefs sought were rendered infructuous due to the flats being sold, and because the rights of third-party purchasers would be adversely affected (!) .

7. The court observed that the permissions granted for construction were lawful and had been acted upon, and that the building was constructed in accordance with these permissions (!) .

8. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not seek substantive relief in their declaratory suit, which impacted the court’s willingness to grant the reliefs sought (!) .

9. The argument that building permissions were illegal due to breach of statutory obligations was rejected because there was no case that permissions were granted in violation of building regulations (!) .

10. Previous orders in related writ petitions were considered, but found to be of no consequence since interim orders were vacated, and the permission to withdraw the petition was granted (!) .

11. The court concluded that the flats in "Bonaventure" could not be denied occupancy certificates unless the construction was found to be in breach of permissions or regulations, which was not established (!) .

12. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the permissions were valid and that interim reliefs were unwarranted given the circumstances (!) .

Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?