1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9507 OF 2010 Sonibai w/o Ramchandra @ Kapurchand Sancheti and others ... PETITIONERS VERSUS Anil s/o Pundlik Barhate ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners Shri A.S. Sawant, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 18th October, 2010 PER COURT : 1. An order passed by the District Judge-1, Amalner on 2.8.2010, thereby allowing the Misc. Appeal presented by the respondent (original defendant) is subjected to challenge in this petition. The petitioners herein (original plaintiffs) instituted suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.22/2009 against the defendant claiming a decree of injunction and certain other reliefs. In the pending suit, plaintiffs presented an application for temporary injunction, contending that they are in possession of the property. The application tendered by the plaintiffs at Exhibit 6 was allowed by the trial Court, whereas, on consideration of appeal presented by the respondent (original defendant), the order passed by the trial Court was reversed. 2. I have perused the orders passed by both the courts 2 below. The first appellate Court has recorded finding that the defendant, respondent herein, in his capacity as power-of- attorney, has received the possession of the disputed property in execution of the Darkhast. Thus, the defendant is in physical possession over the property and this fact is not controverted by the plaintiffs also. The plaintiffs contend that the possession of the defendant in his capacity as a power-of-attorney holder shall have to be construed as possession of the plaintiffs. There are disputes in respect of entitlement to the property between the plaintiffs and their power-of-attorney. The power-of-attorney holder claims that, father of the plaintiffs has executed a sale deed in his favour during his lifetime and he has title to the property. The questions raised in the suit are required to be dealt with by the trial Court after receiving evidence that may be led by the parties to the suit. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the first appellate Court appears to be reasonable and proper and does not call for any interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit. Hence, same stands rejected. R.M. BORDE JUDGE fmp/wp9507.10