the same was constructed by the builder. It is
further stated that the un-authorised structure which
was constructed has already been demolished and not in
existence. At that stage, the counsel for the society
is said to have raised a new point during the course
of argument, that during pendency of the dispute and
the appeal, new illegal structure on the same site has
been raised and the same requires to be demoloished.
The said submission has been rejected by the Appellate
Court immediately in the next paragraph. The
statement allegedly made by the counsel for the
respondent does not appear to have been properly
recorded by the court. The recording of the statement
in the earlier paragraph of the reasons and the
statement finding place in the concluding paragraph
are at variance. Be it as it may, as pointed out
hereinabove, there is no substantive prayer made
claiming mandatory injunction in the nature of removal
of the structure. Ordinarily mandatory injunction
cannot be granted at the interlocatory stage, and more
so when no substantive relief for that purpose is
claimed. At this stage both the advocates for the
respective parties are in agreement that the impugned
order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative
Appellate Court, Bombay be quashed and set aside and
the Co-operative Court be directed to dispose of the
Dispute as expeditiously as possible. The learned
