16-WP-949-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 949 OF 2026 Neera Divakar Bhoir & anr. ..Petitioners Versus Eversmile Properties Pvt Ltd & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sandeep Mishra, a/w Ms. Madhura Mulay, for Petitioners. Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Suneet Tyagi, Ms Gaytri Pinkyar, i/b Mr. Makarand Savant, for Respondent No.1. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026 Oral Order :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order dated 07th August, 2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thane in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 16/2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge thereby restraining the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 272/2022 from creating third party interest in the suit property and from obstructing the development and construction activities being carried out by the plaintiff over the suit property, came to be dismissed. SAINATH, PA 1/4 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.10.03 14:51:20 +0530 16-WP-949-2026.DOC 3. The learned Principal District Judge, however, has put the plaintiff to the terms that, while seeking any development permission in respect of the suit property or entering into any transaction with a third party, the plaintiff shall disclose the pendency of the litigation. 4. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking the relief that, the suit agreement dated 26th March, 1987 together with the power of attorney dated 26th March 1987 executed in its favour by the defendants was valid, enforceable and binding upon the defendants, and the notice dated 10th January 2022 whereby the said agreement was sought to be terminated, was illegal, null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. 5. Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that Smt. Janabai Krishna Patil, predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, has not issued the said notice. The factum of execution of the development agreement and the power of attorney by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, was specifically disputed. 6. A perusal of the said notice dated 10th January, 2022 indicates that, the Defendants No. 1 to 6 purported to terminate the development agreement and the power of attorney dated 26th March, 1987. Implicit in the said notice of termination was an SAINATH, PA 2/4 16-WP-949-2026.DOC admission of the factum of execution of the said development agreement and the power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The Courts below on the basis of prima facie material to show the existence and execution of the development agreement and the power of attorney, which the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 sought to terminate, and the development at the suit premises, have granted the interim relief. 8. Such concurrent exercise of discretion by the Courts below is not amenable to interference in exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, especially when there is prima facie material to show that, the purported co-owners of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners sought to terminate the development agreement and the power of attorney. 9. The learned Principal District Judge has justifiably put the plaintiff to the terms that, the plaintiff shall disclose the factum of the pendency of the litigation while seeking permissions from the Planning and the concerned Authorities and entering into any transaction with a third party. 10. Such an equitable order does not deserve interference in exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. 11. The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed. SAINATH, PA 3/4 16-WP-949-2026.DOC 12. The Trial Court is, however, requested to hear and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 4/4