65-WP-13483-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13483 OF 2018 Rakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal. … Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kantilal Jani and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate (Thr. V.C.), Mr. Kishor Patil, Mr. Amol Mhatre, Ms. Sonal Dabholkar for the petitioner. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 4th MARCH 2026 ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by defendant no.1 to challenge the order passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court granting an injunction. The order of injunction restrains the petitioner from disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession and alienating the suit property or making any changes to the suit property except according to the due process of law. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both the courts have ignored the 7/12 extract in the name of the petitioner and recorded findings in favour of 1/4 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:6257 65-WP-13483-2018.docx the plaintiffs by relying upon the pleadings in Special Civil Suit No. 90 of 2010 filed by defendant nos. 2 to 10. The petitioner, i.e. defendant no.1, claims through defendant nos. 2 to 10. He submits that the said suit is filed by defendant nos. 2 to 10 seeking possession from the plaintiffs. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that to support the petitioner’s contentions on possession, 7/12 extracts were produced on record, which would indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. Hence, only based on the pleadings in the suit filed by defendant nos. 2 to 10, both courts could not have granted an injunction against the petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser through defendant nos. 2 to 10. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders would warrant interference by this court. 3. I have perused the papers of the petition, the suit is filed by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to challenge the sale deed dated 21st November 2013 executed by defendant nos. 2 to 10 in favour of defendant no.1. The plaintiffs seek to protect their possession based on the title document of a registered sale deed. The plaintiffs seek to challenge the sale deed in favour of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the 2/4 65-WP-13483-2018.docx petitioner’s documents would not confer any right, title, or interest in the suit property in favour of the petitioner. 4. A perusal of the findings recorded by both courts shows that the courts have discussed the revenue records relied upon by the petitioner. There is no dispute that defendant nos. 2 to 10 have filed Special Civil Suit No. 90 of 2010 in which they admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession. The petitioner claims through defendant nos. 2 to 10. Hence, based on the title documents relied upon by the plaintiffs, both the courts have recorded prima facie findings in their favour. So far as the revenue record is concerned, according to both the courts, the same would not be sufficient to hold at the interim stage that defendant no. 1 is in possession of the suit property. The injunction granted by the trial court restrains the petitioner from disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession without following due process of law. The injunction also restrains the petitioner from creating third- party rights in the suit property. 5. Considering the nature of the prayers in the suit, both courts have rightly granted the order of injunction to preserve the status of the suit property. Both the courts have 3/4 65-WP-13483-2018.docx concurrently recorded the prima facie findings in favour of the plaintiffs. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned orders, warranting any interference in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 4/4