Order No. 15

Ld. Advocate for the complainants/petitioners is present.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.1 is present.

None appears on behalf of the other opposite parties.

The Misc. Application dated 04/05/2023 is taken up for hearing along with its written objection filed by the opposite party no.1.

Perused. Considered. Heard both side.                     

Ld. Advocate for the complainants/petitioners submits that if the property in question is transferred to any third party prior to disposal of the complaint case it will create extreme hardship to the complainant and it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings between the parties. Therefore, Ld. Advocate for the complainant/petitioner prays for injunction on the scheduled property.

In reply, Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.1 raised objection against the prayer of injunction.

On perusal of the record we find that the complainants/petitioners entered into a tripartite agreement with the land owner and erstwhile developer in respect of the property in question. It has been alleged that till date opposite parties have not delivered the possession of the same in their favour and for such they have been compelled to file the complaint case before this Commission.

Considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties, prayer for injunction over the properties mentioned in the schedule of complaint application is hereby allowed.

The opposite parties are hereby restrained from transferring, aligning and/or assigning property mentioned in the schedule of the complaint application to any third party till disposal of complaint case no. CC/41/2023.

Thus, the Misc. Application dated 04/05/2023 is disposed of on contest but without any cost.