1. The Plaintiffs (“Maya Developers”) are a firm of developers. They are the applicants in Notice of Motion (L) No. 834 of 2015. In this Notice of Motion, they seek interim reliefs in relation to the re-development of a building known as “Azad Bhavan”, owned by the 21st Defendant, the Azad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (“the Society”). This building is at 831, Netaji Subhash Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai 400 080. It stands on Plot No. 831, S.No. 1,000, CTS Nos. 876, 876/1-13 of Village Mulund (W), Taluka Kurla. The plot is about 1237.10 sq.mts. Azad Bhavan is a ground plus two floor structure. It has a total of 36 rooms. Of these, 33 are of 220 sq.ft. carpet area; three have a carpet area of 320 sq.ft. A list of the members of the Society is annexed to the Plaint.

2. Defendant No.10 is the Applicant in the companion Notice of Motion No. 971 of 2015. That principally raises a jurisdictional issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), in addition to other reliefs. I will take that up first.

3. I have heard Mr. Kapadia for the Plaintiffs and Mr. Pai for Defendants Nos. 1 to 10, 12, 13 and 20 at very great length. They have taken me through the material on record. I have considered their arguments and submissions, and also the material on record.

THE 10TH DEFENDANT’S MOTION

4. In this Notice of Motion, the 10th Defendant raises a plea that the suit is barred and that this Court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to hear it. This is taken under Section 9A of the CPC. The remaining reliefs relate to the re-development of Azad Bhavan: to restrain the Plaintiffs from acting on it, to direct them to produce the original Development Agreement and one of the annexures to it and for the appointment of a third party to prepare a feasibility report.

5. I have considered the jurisdictional issue separately. As to the other issues in the 10th Defendant’s Notice of Motion, I have dealt with these while considering the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion.

THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE AS TO JURISDICTION:

6. Before I take up the issue of law that is raised as a jurisdictional bar, a brief summary of the factual background is necessary. Some time in 2009, the Society commenced the exercise of undertaking re-development. It resolved to proceed with a re-development and it appointed a Project Management Consultant (“PMC”), an architect and an Advocate. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai made a site visit report. The process took nearly three years. On 26th February 2012, at a General Body meeting of the Society (which has 36 members), 32 members voted; 31 were in favour of the re-development, one was against. The Society members executed affidavits and looked at the terms of the Development Agreement. Maya Developers offered an additional area (at a stated price) over and above the already increased area on re-development. Plans were approved and lots drawn for allocation of flats. The necessary no-objections were put in place. All that remained was for the members to deliver possession. About two and a half years later, a few members objected. Many of these had earlier participated, voted and were part of the majority that favoured the re-development and the agreement with Maya Developers. They also participated in the meeting that approved the terms and conditions. Some of them moved the Cooperative Court, but failed to get relief. They then moved the City Civil Court, with similar results.

7. I have deliberately put this as broadly as possible, shorn of all details, at this stage, because these are not essential to the preliminary issue. I will return to the factual aspect and consider the details while addressing the rival applications on merits.

8. The preliminary issue is that this Court lacks jurisdiction in view of Section 91 of