Diksha Rane 903 WP 18550 2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.18550/2024 SANTOSH SEVU PAWAR THROUGH ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY M.P. ZENDE ..PETITIONER VS MANOHAR RAMAN PATIL & KOLI & ORS ..RESPONDENTS Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w. Adv. Hrishikesh Nabar for petitioner. Adv. Rahul Thakar for respnodents. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026. Per Court : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders of injunction granted against the defendant not to create third party interest in the suit property. The suit is challenging the transaction of sale made in favour of the defendants by the original vendors and the legal heirs of one of the vendors. The contention before the Civil Court primarily is that the Power of Attorney holder of the vendor has executed the sale deed, however, one of the vendor had expired before the sale deed was executed and 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026 2026:BHC-AS:38278 Diksha Rane 903 WP 18550 2024.docx as such, the power of attorney had come to an end viz-a-viz one of the vendors. In this background, it is stated that the sale deed executed is bad in law. It is also contended that entire consideration amount is not received particularly the consideration of cash amount is not received. 3. However, learned counsel challenging the impugned order before this Court has taken me through the impugned order and the Power of Attorney and submits that there is no dispute as regards the cheque payment of Rs.1 lakh each being received by the parties. Cheque payment is given to each person in this name and there is no dispute that those amounts are encashed. He submits that there is inter se disputes between the parties as to the consideration being paid to one of the persons who has expired, and the consideration to be paid to the legal heirs. He also submits that the consideration having being received and the Power of Attorney having executed the sale deed, at the highest the sale deed may be effected qua only one person and not for other plaintiffs. In any event, he submits that all the parties have taken consideration. In this situation, no injunction order ought to have been passed against the defendant. 4. Having perused the documents although prima facie it appears that the petitioner may have some substance in the submissions but considering that the interim order is in force for a long period and both the Courts have concurrently granted the injunction and the injunction is limited to not to create third party 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Diksha Rane 903 WP 18550 2024.docx interest, this Court would not interfere with the discretionary orders of Courts below as they are in force for a long period. 5. I am informed by the counsel that the suit is at the stage of evidence and the parties agree before me that they will not seek unnecessary adjournments and will co-operate with the Court in deciding the suit. The Court thus, directs the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously, and endeavour be made to dispose of the suit within a period of one year. 6. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/09/2026 17:50:22