58-wp-719-2023(1).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2023 Millenium Semiconductors through Haresh Govindram Abhichandani … Petitioner vs. Emerald Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd through its authorized sign. Mr. Viren Pandurang Thorat and Anr … Respondents Mr. Akhilesh Dubey a/w. Mr. Vagish Mishra, Mr. Amit Dubey, Mr. Uttam Dubey, Mr. Rajuram Kuleriya, Mr. Suhas Kadu, Mr. Shivam Mishra i/b. Law Counsellor, for Petitioner Mr. Shivram A. Gawade i/b. Mr. Deepak R. More for Respondent No.2. Mr. Lalit Jhunjhunwala a/w. Mr. Tanmay A. Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Soham Badole i/b. Mr. Pavan S. Patil for Respondent No.1 Mr. Saket Mone a/w. Mr. Archit Rao and Ms. Srushti Thorat i/b. Vidhii Partners for Respondent No.3. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 4th DECEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed by defendant no.1 to challenge the order passed in the suit filed by respondent no.1, granting a temporary injunction restraining defendant nos. 1 and 3 to 5 from carrying out constructions of any nature on the suit property and Page no. 1 of 6 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2025.12.19 19:42:08 +0530 58-wp-719-2023(1).doc creating a third-party interest in the suit. The injunction order was passed on 7th January 2020. This order is confirmed by the appeal court in the appeal preferred by defendant no.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff society is granted a deemed conveyance in respect of 9437.78 square meters. The plaintiff has accepted the deemed conveyance in respect of the said area. As per the sanction layout, plot nos. 5 and 5-a are distinctly identified. The plaintiff society is not concerned with the plot no. 5-a. He submits that, although there is an agreement and the right, title, and interest in plot no. 5-a is in favour of defendant no.1; a restraining order is passed in respect of the property to which the plaintiff has no right. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out the description in the plaint, where, according to him, even the plaintiff has described the suit property as admeasuring 1151.98 square meters, carved out of the land bearing survey no. 210/211/5/A. However, the deemed conveyance order applies only to 9437.78 square meters. Hence, there is no prima facie case made out in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 1151.98 square meters, which also includes plot no. 5-a, to which only defendant no.1 would be entitled, and the society is not concerned with the same. He submits Page no. 2 of 6 58-wp-719-2023(1).doc that even in the plaint, the plaintiff has independently described the plot no.5 and 5-a. He therefore submits that the impugned order grants an injunction against defendant no.1, though right, title and interest in respect of plot no. 5-a is in favour of defendant no.1. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1(plaintiff) supports the impugned order. He submits that pursuant to the order of deemed conveyance, the conveyance deed is registered in favour of the plaintiff society. He relies upon the description of the property, which is the subject matter of the conveyance deed, as described in Schedule I of the conveyance deed. He points out that the area of 9437.78 square meters is conveyed to the plaintiff society along with the coverage of plot no. 5, as shown in the Schedule, which also describes the open area. He therefore submits that based on the conveyance deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, the description of the property is specifically pleaded in the plaint paragraph no.1. The disputed property, which according to the plaintiff is carved out from the original property as described in paragraph no. 1a of the plaint is further explained by the plaintiff in the plaint paragraph no. 1b as a suit property. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff points out that the society consists of row houses and is identified as plot no. 5 demarcated on Page no. 3 of 6 58-wp-719-2023(1).doc the sanctioned layout. The plaintiff’s right as claimed in the plaint is based on the deemed conveyance executed in favour of the society, which describes the coverage of plot no. 5. He therefore points out that the particulars of the sanctioned layout of plot no. 5 and 5-a are specifically mentioned by the plaintiff society in the suit. He submits that in the event defendant no.1 proceeded with carrying out construction on the suit property, the same would cause prejudice to the plaintiff. Accordingly, to preserve the status of the suit property, both courts have rightly granted an injunction in favour of the society. He further points out that the suit is ready for hearing and is pending for framing issues. He therefore submits that if, during the pendency of the suit at this stage, the order of injunction is disturbed, the same would cause prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff. 6. I have perused the papers of the petition. There is no dispute that the conveyance deed is executed in favour of the plaintiff, pursuant to the order granting deemed conveyance. A perusal of the description in the schedule of the conveyance deed and the description pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint in paragraph no. 1, shows that the plaintiff is claiming a right in respect of the land admeasuring 9437.78 square meters as described in the schedule of the conveyance deed, with further description of the proportionate Page no. 4 of 6 58-wp-719-2023(1).doc open area and plot coverage on plot no. 5. The conveyance deed in favour of the society is not under challenge. Pursuant to the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff society, the society has filed a suit seeking a declaration, with a further declaration, that the agreement in favour of defendant no. 1 would not be binding upon the plaintiff. 7. Both courts have considered the description of the property in the plaint in light of the conveyance deed and its schedule. The contentions raised on behalf of defendant no.1 regarding their rights in respect of plot no. 5-a is also considered by both the courts. The bifurcation of the plaintiff society from the parent society and the sub-division of the plot as per the revised layout and the correction of the independent plot no. 5-a is also taken into consideration by both courts. Considering the revised sanctioned layout and the description of the property conveyed to the society, as per the registered conveyance deed, the issues raised by the plaintiff in respect of the plot area as described in the conveyance deed, prima facie shows that the plaintiff society claims rights in respect of the land admeasuring 9437.78 square meters along with the proportionate open area and coverage area of plot no. 5. Thus, the rival contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties regarding the open area, the creation of the independent plot as per the Page no. 5 of 6 58-wp-719-2023(1).doc revised sanctioned layout needs to be considered at the time of trial. 8. At this stage, if the nature and status of the property are changed by carrying out construction and creation of a third-party interest, the same would cause prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff and would also result in multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, the trial court and the appellate court have rightly considered the three basic principles for the grant of a temporary injunction and have recorded reasons on the prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiff. 9. Considering the reasons recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court, and taking into account the essential ingredients for the grant of a temporary injunction during the pendency of a substantial suit for declaration and injunction based on title, the impugned order would not require interference by this court. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, warranting the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The Writ Petition is therefore rejected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 6 of 6