ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. The appellants-original opponents-original petitioners have filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.9.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application (for vacating interim relief) No. 6859 of 2016, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the said application and thereby vacated the interim relief granted in favour of the present appellants. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under: 2.1 The appellants-original petitioners have filed Special Civil Application No. 9116 of 2016 in which the appellants have challenged the development permission dated 13.10.2015 granted by the original respondent no. 1 in favour of the original respondent no. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the original petitioner no. 1-society is a cooperative society and the object of petitioner no. 1-society is to construct houses for residential purpose and the petitioner no. 1-society purchased the land bearing revenue survey no. 813/3 which is known as Town Planning Scheme No. 3 and after getting the plan approved through the concerned authority, the petitioner no. 1-society had constructed residential houses for 16 members. It is the grievance of the petitioners that without previous permission of the petitioner no. 1-society, 3 members of the said society who were having occupation as well as ownership rights over the residential units which were existed on the plot owned by the petitioner no. 1-society sold their respective plot nos. 1, 2 and 13 in favour of the original respondent no. 2 by registered sale deeds dated 20.7.2015 It is the grievance of the petitioner that though commercial activities and commercial construction are not permissible as per the bye-laws of the petitioner no. 1-society, the respondent no. 1 has granted development permission in favour of the respondent no. 2. 2.2 It is further the case of the petitioners that petitioners have filed Lavad Case No. 3 of 2016 before the Board of Nominees along with the stay application below Exh.5 wherein they have prayed that respondent no. 2 be restrained from constructing the commercial complex in the plot in dispute. However, in the said Lavad Suit, development permission is not under challenge as the development permission was obtained by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act after the Lavad Suit is filed. 2 be restrained from constructing the commercial complex in the plot in dispute. However, in the said Lavad Suit, development permission is not under challenge as the development permission was obtained by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act after the Lavad Suit is filed. 2.3 Learned Single Judge by an order dated 21.6.2016, while issuing the notice granted ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 9(B) in the petition. The original respondent no. 2 therefore filed Civil Application No. 6859 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 9116 of 2016 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating ex-parte ad-interim relief granted in favour of the original petitioners. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 21.9.2016 allowed the said Civil Application and thereby vacated the ad-interim relief granted in favour of the original petitioners-present appellants. However, the learned Single Judge has also protected the rights of the parties and to maintain the balance of conflicting claims, the said interim relief was vacated on certain conditions. The appellants-original petitioners have therefore filed the present appeal. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S Patel appearing with Mr. Chirag Patel for the appellants and learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.I. Nanavati assisted by learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Mehta for Ms. Anuja Nanavati for respondent no. 1-herein. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Patel mainly submitted that the petitioner no. 1-society is a cooperative housing society and members of the society cannot sell the residential unit for commercial purpose. In past, three members of the society namely Mr. N.D. Desai, Mr. Manoj H. Parmar, Smt. Shardaben N. Suthar and Mr. Harendra M. Suthar who are occupying plot nos. 1, 2 and 13 respectively asked for permission for commercial construction. However, some of the members objected for the same and therefore it was resolved not to grant such permission to any member by resolution dated 24.7.2008 It is further contended that behind the back of the members of petitioner no. 1-society, the then Chairman of petitioner no. 1-society on his own and without any agenda as well as without any resolution, gave No Objection Certificate to the aforesaid members for commercial construction by issuing No Objection Certificate dated 16.7.2008 However, such consent is not binding to the petitioner no. 1-society as the said certificate was issued without authorization. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Patel thereafter submitted that the petitioner no. 1-society as the said certificate was issued without authorization. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Patel thereafter submitted that the petitioner no. 1-society is the owner of the land in question and the members of the society are the owners of the residential units which are constructed on the concerned plot of land. It is submitted that the present respondent no. 1-original respondent no. 2 has purchased the plots in question from the members of the petitioner no. 1-society without obtaining prior approval of the society. The original respondent no. 1 has not given opportunity of hearing to the society before grant of development permission and therefore the original respondent no. 2 is not having any right to carry out the commercial construction in the residential locality. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has referred to Section 30 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and Rule 18 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules in support of his submission and contended that procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules are not followed and therefore learned Single Judge has committed an error while vacating the ad-interim relief granted in favour of the present appellants-original petitioners. 3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Patel has placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his submissions: (1) Sarjan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Surat Municipal Corporation, reported in 2012 (1) GLH 267. (2) Ambica Nagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (5) GLR 3740. (3) Dhaneshbhai Bhikhubhai Patel v. Shantiniketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. reported in AIR 2014 Guj 4 . (4) Order dated 16.10.2012 passed in SCA 12891 of 2012 confirmed by the Division Bench in LPA 1411 of 2013. 3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that if the construction carried out by the present respondent no. 2 is over during the pendency of the petition and if the third party rights are created, the appellants-original petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and therefore when the petition is pending for consideration on merits, learned Single Judge ought not to have vacated the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners. He, therefore, urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nanavati contended that the original respondent no. He, therefore, urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nanavati contended that the original respondent no. 2 is a bona-fide purchaser who has purchased the plot of land along with the construction made thereon by registered sale deeds executed on 20.7.2015 Before the purchase of the plot no. 13 with superstructure, the respondent no. 2 verified the sale deed executed by the petitioner no. 1-society through its Chairman in favour of one Harendra Manharlal Suthar which was executed on 31.3.2008 The present appellant no. 2 was the Chairman/Secretary of the petitioner no. 1-society at the relevant time who has executed the deed in favour of said Mr. Suthar. The respondent no. 2 has purchased the said plot with superstructure by registered sale deed dated 20.7.2015 from Mr. Suthar. Learned counsel referred to the entry made in the revenue record which is produced at page no. 26A of the compilation. Learned counsel thereafter referred to the various sale deeds executed by the respondent no. 2 with regard to plot nos. 1, 2 and 13 in question and submitted that the respondent no. 2 has invested huge amount for the purchase of the said plots with superstructure and thereafter respondent no. 2 has started the construction after getting the development permission from the competent authority. 4.1 It is further submitted, after referring to the photographs produced at page nos. 84 to 87 of the compilation, that construction in question is already made on the plots in dispute and that the development permission was granted by the competent authority on 13.10.2015 and the petition was filed only in May, 2016. It is not open for the petitioner to contend that they were not aware about the construction started by the respondent no. 2. Petitioner no. 2 is residing in the petitioner no. 1-society adjoining to the commercial construction in dispute which is carried out by the respondent no. 2. Thus, at belated stage, the petition is filed. It is not open for the petitioner to contend that they were not aware about the construction started by the respondent no. 2. Petitioner no. 2 is residing in the petitioner no. 1-society adjoining to the commercial construction in dispute which is carried out by the respondent no. 2. Thus, at belated stage, the petition is filed. 4.2 At this stage, it is further urged that before filing the petition before this Court, the petitioner filed Lavad Suit before the Board of Nominees and the Board of Nominees has not granted ad-interim stay in favour of the petitioners and till date, no order is passed by the Board of Nominees in favour of the petitioners and therefore it appears that though the Lavad Suit is pending which is filed in March-April, 2016, the petition is filed in May, 2016 before this Court. Thus, looking to the conduct of the petitioners also, the petitioners are not entitled to claim interim relief. 4.3 Learned counsel Mr. Nanavati thereafter submitted that the petitioner no. 1-society on 13.7.2008 in its annual general meeting various resolutions including resolution no. 3, 4 and 5. Learned counsel referred to the said resolutions and submitted that it was resolved in the meeting that the proposal is received from Mr. Desai and other members whose houses are situated facing the road side to demolish their houses and to develop the same as commercial property. The said proposal was considered and it was resolved to give such permission and no objection certificate for such commercial construction. Learned counsel thereafter referred to the no objection certificate issued by the Secretary of the petitioner no. 1-society issued on 16.7.2008 wherein also there is a reference with regard to resolution no. 3, 4 and 5 passed in meeting dated 13.7.2008 and no objection certificate was given for commercial construction on plot no. 1, 2 and 13. 4.4 At this stage, it is further submitted that even in the resolution passed in the meeting dated 24.7.2008 referred by learned advocate for the petitioners, there is a specific reference to the proceedings carried out in the earlier meeting and the same was approved by way of resolution no. 1. Thus, the earlier resolution was not disturbed as per the submission of learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati. 4.5 Learned counsel Mr. 1. Thus, the earlier resolution was not disturbed as per the submission of learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati. 4.5 Learned counsel Mr. Nanavati further contended that when the sale deed dated 31.3.2008 is not challenged before any authority, when the no objection certificate dated 16.7.2008 is not challenged before any Court, it is not open for the petitioner no. 1-society to take objection against the development permission granted by the competent authority in favour of respondent no. 2. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has invested huge amount for purchase of the plot in question as well as for the construction which is carried out on the said plots and therefore when the petitioners have approached before the Court at belated stage, the learned Single Judge has rightly vacated the interim relief granted in favour of the original petitioners. It is submitted that balance of convenience is in favour of the original respondent no. 2 and if the respondent no. 2 is not permitted to make further construction and to deal with the property in question, respondent no. 2 will suffer irreparable loss. He placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mandali Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2291 . 4.6 Lastly, it is submitted that learned Single Judge has, while vacating the interim relief, protected even the interest of the original petitioners by imposing certain conditions to which the respondent no. 2 is agreeable. He, therefore, submitted that present appeal be dismissed. 5. We have heard the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case in detail at this stage as the main petition is pending before the learned Single Judge. However, the aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable loss are to be considered at this stage. 7. Prima facie, when the no objection certificate was granted on 16.7.2008 by the petitioner no. 1-society in favour of the three members and when the respondent no. 2 has purchased the property from those members by registered sale deed and the sale deed of 2008 and No Objection Certificate dated 16.7.2008 are not challenged before any authority, now it is not open for the petitioner no. 1-society in favour of the three members and when the respondent no. 2 has purchased the property from those members by registered sale deed and the sale deed of 2008 and No Objection Certificate dated 16.7.2008 are not challenged before any authority, now it is not open for the petitioner no. 1-society to contend that the concerned signatory-secretary of the petitioner no. 1 society was not authorized to grant such no objection certificate. There is specific reference in the said no objection certificate with regard to the resolution nos. 3, 4 and 5 passed in annual general meeting dated 13.7.2008 by which it was resolved to grant permission to develop the said plots for commercial purpose. Even in the meeting dated 24.7.2008, the proceedings of the earlier meeting i.e. 13.7.2008 was approved. The petitioner no. 1-society has not filed any proceedings challenging the said certificate dated 16.7.2008 nor the petitioner no. 1-society has filed any proceedings against the signatory of the said certificate by saying that the said certificate was wrongly issued by him. No criminal proceedings are also initiated against the said signatory. Hence, when the aforesaid aspects were very well within the knowledge of the appellants and have not been challenged anywhere, the relief as prayed cannot be granted at this belated stage. 8. The petitioners have filed Lavad Suit in which the relief is not granted in their favour till date and this petition is filed only on 20.5.2016 When the development permission was granted on 13.10.2015, it is not believable that the petitioners were not aware about the commencement of the construction by the respondent no. 2 when the petitioner no. 2 is residing in the 1 same society. From the photographs, it is clear that majority of the construction is over and respondent no. 2 has invested huge amount while purchasing the plots in question and in carrying out construction, therefore in the factual background, the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent no. 2. Hence, we are of the opinion that the when the learned Single Judge has imposed certain conditions, the rights of the petitioners are also protected. 9. In the case of Mandali Ranganna (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held in paragraphs 18, 23 and 24 as under: “18. 2. Hence, we are of the opinion that the when the learned Single Judge has imposed certain conditions, the rights of the petitioners are also protected. 9. In the case of Mandali Ranganna (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held in paragraphs 18, 23 and 24 as under: “18. While considering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto, viz., existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The Court will not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. We are not however, oblivious of the fact that grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequence depending upon the nature thereof. The Courts dealing with such matters must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties. For the said purpose, application of mind on the part of the Courts is imperative. Contentions raised by the parties must be determined objectively. 23. Rightly or wrongly construction have come up. They cannot be directed to be demolished, at least at this stage. Respondent No. 7 is said to have spent three crores of rupees. If that be so, in our opinion, it would not be proper to stop further constructions. 24. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served if while allowing the respondents to carry out constructions of the buildings, the same is made subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. The Trial Court is requested to hear out and dispose of the suit as early as possible. If any third party interest is created upon completion of the constructions, the deeds in question shall clearly stipulate that the matter is subjudice and all sales shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. All parties must co-operate in the early hearing and disposal of the suit. Respondents must also furnish sufficient security before learned Trial Judge within four weeks from the date which, for the time being, is assessed at Rupees one Crore.” 10. All parties must co-operate in the early hearing and disposal of the suit. Respondents must also furnish sufficient security before learned Trial Judge within four weeks from the date which, for the time being, is assessed at Rupees one Crore.” 10. Thus, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even assuming that the construction has wrongly come up as alleged by the original petitioners, it would not be proper to stop further construction at this stage. However, as directed by learned Single Judge, the respondent no. 2 is bound to give undertaking and therefore right of the petitioner is protected. 11. We are not dealing with the decisions relied on by learned advocate Mr. Patel for the appellants in this appeal as the petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge for final disposal and this appeal is against the order of vacation of interim relief, hence any observations made by us in detail may affect the outcome of the main petition. Hence, we restrict our observations in this appeal by considering the factors of balance of convenience and irreparable loss only and our observations made in this order are prima facie. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is devoid of merits and is not entertained. Hence, dismissed. However, looking to the facts of the case, we request the learned Single Judge to hear and dispose off the main petition being Special Civil Application No. 9116 of 2015 as early as possible without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 13. As the appeal is dismissed, civil application also stands dismissed. 14. Learned Single Judge has vacated the interim relief subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the original respondent no. 2-present respondent no. 1 shall deposit the amount of Rs.2 crores before this Court by way of draft in favour of the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat within a period of two weeks which shall be invested in a fixed deposit for a period of one year. During the pendency of this appeal, the said time limit has expired and therefore we permit the original respondent no. 2-present respondent no. 1 to deposit the amount as directed by the learned Single Judge within a period of three weeks from today.