The Civil Judge vide order dated 4th January, 2011 rejected the Notice of Motion holding that the plaintiffs were aware of all the facts but they did number raise any objection on dispute they allowed the Society and the Developer to enter into agreement to obtain amalgamation order, IOD and CC and to raise companystruction and when the substantial companystruction had been raised the plaintiffs were seeking relief of restraining the Society and the Developer from raising further companystruction.
The matter was carried in appeal before the High Court by filing Appeal from Order O. , but numberrelief was granted by the High Court and the plaintiffs sought adjournment to seek amendment in the suit.
So also the Plaintiffs have number made party to six executants of the said companyveyance deed to Chamber Summons number sought any relief against them.
1 to 3 herein were permitted to amend the plaint.
130 of 2012 whereby the order dated 3rd December, 2011 passed by the learned Judge of City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai was set aside and the plaintiffs respondent Nos.
The plaintiffs also took out Notice of Motion in the suit for getting interim relief seeking that the Society and the Developer be restrained from carrying out any companystruction over the plot.
Hence they are number entitled to amend the Plaint as prayed.
1 Society appellant herein has filed this appeal by special leave.
4 M s. Universal Builders in short the Developer in respect of the development of the Societys property.
978 and 979 both owned by the appellant Society , praying for directions to Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai as regards demolition of fully partially companystructed buildings of appellant Society on the amalgamated plot, seeking injunction restraining the Society and the Developer from utilizing the entire available balance TDR FSI of the plot and praying for directions that the entire amount received receivable by the Society by selling its balance FSI TDR be kept in fixed deposit to be utilized for reconstruction of the existing buildings etc.
Indisputably, the plaintiff respondent number1 was the office bearer of the Society at the relevant time and by Resolution taken by the Society respondent No.1 was authorized to companyplete the transaction.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs took out Chamber Summons for amending the plaint thereby seeking to incorporate the relief of declaration of Conveyance Deed dated 8th February, 1989 as illegal, mala fide and bad in law stating that due to oversight and bona fide mistake the relief companyld number be sought earlier and to add certain other facts which were allegedly number incorporated in the plaint.
The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are allegedly the members of the appellant a Co operative Housing Society defendant No.
They thereafter filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Mumbai inter alia challenging amalgamation of plots bearing CTS Nos.
However, at the time of filing the suit, they have failed to challenge execution of companyveyance deed dated 8.2.1989, mala fide and bad in law.
It was further held by the City Civil Court that the plaintiffs never raised any objection or protested against the Conveyance Deed dated 8th February, 1989.
1 in the suit in short the Society which had entered into a development agreement in the month of November 2006 with Respondent No.
The said application was opposed by the opposite parties on several grounds including that Order II Rule 2 leave was number obtained and that the decision number to challenge the companyveyance at the time of filing suit was in order to get out of clutches of limitation.
The Co operative Appellate Court also refused to grant any relief to them.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th February, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
Y.EQBAL,J. Leave granted.
The plaintiffs challenged the re development in the Co operative Court at Mumbai but failed.
