JUDGMENT: Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. The Appellants/original plaintiffs have challenged order dated 17 August 2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan whereby an application for injunction (Exhibit 5) stands rejected and the status-quo granted on 13 June 2012, stood vacated. 3. The Appellants have filed the present Suit some time in June 2012 on the foundation that they are the legal heirs of one Kasam J. Rajkotwala (the deceased) and, therefore, being legal heirss and the owners of the property in question, prayed for setting aside Agreement dated 27 January 1995 in favour of Defendant No.3, now further transferred in favour of Defendant No.4 and also prayed to set aside and declare null and void Conveyance Deed dated 28 February 2012 and Correction Conveyance Deed dated 25 April 2012 and Indemnity-cum-Declaration Bond dated 27 February 2012. They also prayed for injunction/interim protection covering the rights flowing from these Agreements and specially the rights of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as contemplated under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (For short, DC Regulations). Development Agreement dated 27 March 2003 including Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 17 March 2003 in favour of the Respondent No. 4 by Respondent No. 3 are also not in dispute. 4. Based upon Agreements of 1995, on the lands in question, the contesting Respondents erected about 450 residential and commercial units subject to Banks and Financial institutions loans by the respective purchasers, as well as, the parties, apart from the private financers. There are about 5 societies formed by the purchasers of the residential and commercial units. The Respondent/Corporation (Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation) has also issued completion certificate for the same. The multiple third party rights have already been created since long. 5. Kasam expired on 15 August 1911. The Suit was filed some time in June 2012 by the Plaintiffs claiming to be the legal heirs of Kasam. Agreement dated 27 January 1995 which was admittedly signed by Kasam for himself and on behalf of 2 to 10 legal heirs/parties as mentioned in the agreement. All other documents signed-executed and the parties proceeded accordingly, as there was no objection of any kind during the lifetime of Kasam. Agreement dated 27 January 1995 which was admittedly signed by Kasam for himself and on behalf of 2 to 10 legal heirs/parties as mentioned in the agreement. All other documents signed-executed and the parties proceeded accordingly, as there was no objection of any kind during the lifetime of Kasam. There is nothing on record to show that the Plaintiffs, at any point of time, claimed and/or referred and/or insisted to be the owner of the properties in question, based upon their claim being the only legal heirs of Kasam. Strikingly, the deceased was fully aware of these developments and so also his legal heirs. Everything was as per the basic Agreements and time to time executed documents and granted permissions/sanctions by the Corporation. 6. The Corporation, when grants permission to construct any building and/or premises and/or society is required to follow their own rules and regulations including the inspection and the verification of the documents of title and/or related agreements. The Indemnity-cum-Declaration bonds also binds the Corporation, as well as, the owner of the land. Mere sanction of particular project itself is not sufficient. There are various other connected and related aspects which required to be developed with the permission and sanction from the Corporation including the surrounding roads and/or D.P. Roads as contemplated under the D.C. Regulations. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the basic agreement and the property covered by it. The project in question is admittedly on the basis of those lands subject to sanction/permission from the Corporation. It is always matter of record that owner/developer required to demarcate the area consumed for the project and also the remaining area and/or balance area. The owner/developer is also take note of commercial aspects of plots/land while considering and/or while erecting any project and/or while fixing the price of the flats and/or units. This is certainly by taking note of available TDR and/or all other benefits out of such construction/development. In my view, it is difficult to dissect this commercial aspects once the property is developed under the valid agreement and specially when it has been subject to timely sanction and permissions from the Corporation including the relevant no objection from the original owners of the property. 8. In my view, it is difficult to dissect this commercial aspects once the property is developed under the valid agreement and specially when it has been subject to timely sanction and permissions from the Corporation including the relevant no objection from the original owners of the property. 8. We are concerned at this stage the rejection of injunction application as sought by the Plaintiffs/Appellants and not the merits of the claim so averred and/or raised in the plaint. The Appellants themselves prayed in the Suit, first declaration on the foundation of being legal heirs of deceased Kasam, though agreement of 1995 nowhere mentioned their names and on the contrary deceased Kasam had signed on behalf of other legal heirs which remained intact till 15 August 2011. Therefore, during the lifetime of Kasam, there was no such issue with regard to the illegality of these documents, basically when the project has been proceeded. No occupation certificate granted in 2005 itself. 9. Therefore, I am inclined to observe that at this stage, unless it is cleared and declared that the Plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Kasam and the other legal heirs on whose behalf Kasam himself signed the documents of the year 1995, are null and void and/or illegal, there is no case to accept the case of the Plaintiffs, by overlooking all other connected rights flowing from those registered documents. The other prayers as sought by the plaintiffs unless granted and accepted by the Court after due consideration in trial, no prima facie case is made out to grant the protective relief as prayed. Therefore, the specific right and/or averment so made with regard to the TDR, in my view, cannot be dissected and/or accepted as it is connected and/or related to the properties covering the basic agreement of the year 1995. 10. The conduct of the Appellants/Plaintiffs in view of the above, just cannot be overlooked to consider the case while granting the interim and/or protective relief as prayed, specially in view of the fact that there were no steps taken by them when Kasam was alive. There is nothing mentioned about the rights of the legal heirs so mentioned on whose behalf Kasam had signed the agreement of the year 1995. There is nothing mentioned about the rights of the legal heirs so mentioned on whose behalf Kasam had signed the agreement of the year 1995. The heirship issue, therefore, unless adjudicated finally, the Injunction Application to curtail the rights flowing from the basic agreements, is also liable to be tested in trial only. 11. The above undisputed position on record clearly establish that no prima facie case is made out. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the contesting Defendants/Respondents, builder/owner. The delay/latches on the part of the Appellant, in view of the above admitted facts on record, is also an additional factor which, in my view, goes against the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 12. To halt a project at this stage, after so many years will certainly cause great inconvenience and loss to all concerned, in whose favour rights have been created from time to time till this date. Once buildings are constructed, the consequential steps and stages to provide all facilities by the builder/owner just cannot be curtailed and/or overlooked. The Corporation is also required to proceed based upon the documents which are executed and/or permissions they have granted subject to certain conditions including of development of surrounding rights. To what extent, the balance land to be utilised and/or get the benefits out of the same, if it is permissible under the law, based upon the valid registered documents also just cannot be decided and/or at this stage as it is undissectble. I am inclined to observe that every right flowing from the registered documents, revolving around of the land/property, in the present facts and circumstances therefore just cannot be halted at the instance of Plaintiffs. It is needless to mention that the Corporation need to act in accordance with law while considering even the issuance of TDR and/or all other benefits arising out of the land and/or the project in question. 13. Point Nos. 1 and 2 though referred and/or discussed just cannot be overlooked merely because it was only injunction Application (Exhibit 5), but to arrive at particular conclusion, the learned Judge, if, has decided, these points and then refused to grant injunction, I see there is no reason to interfere with the order as those are the basic foundations to deny the interim relief so sought by the Plaintiffs. The learned Judge has considered the basic submissions of the plaintiffs revolving around Issue Nos. The learned Judge has considered the basic submissions of the plaintiffs revolving around Issue Nos. 1 and 2 also and by reasoned order rejected the injunction application and rightly vacated the status-quo granted on 13.06.2012. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and the order so made is well within the frame work of law and the record in view of the above reasons itself, I am inclined to dismiss the Appeal. 14. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. In view of this, Civil Application No.1017/2013 also stands rejected. No costs. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/Plaintiffs submitted to continue the status-quo as granted on 13.06.2012 as the same was vacated by order dated 17.08.2013. The learned senior counsel for the Respondents pointed out that such application was made before the learned Judge also, but it was not extended and in fact the Application was rejected accordingly. The Appellants are restricting the protective prayer only for issue of grant of TDR by Respondents 1 and 2 to Respondents 3 and 4. Considering the fact that till this date, the TDR is not granted, the status-quo s of today be maintained for four weeks from today.