1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1677 OF 2009 Koyana Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. ..Petitioners. V/s. Smt.Phatemabi N. Bawani & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Vijay Patil for Petitioners. Mr.H.S.Venegavkar for Respodents. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order, the Court below has accepted the argument of the Plaintiff that the Power of Attorney dated 23rd July, 1997 and the Development Agreement dated 23rd July, 1997 are not admissible in evidence and cannot be accepted, as the same are un-registered documents. 3. Insofar as Development Agreement is concerned, Counsel for the Petitioners in all fairness submits that the same creates right, title or interest in favour of the Defendants and for which reason the document would compulsorily registerable 2 in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. The argument before this Court is however, in relation to the Power of Attorney. 4. According to the Petitioners, the Power of Attorney does not create right, title or interest in favour of the holder of the attorney. For that reason, the document is not required to be compulsorily registered under section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Even if this argument is available, the question is whether it is open to the Petitioner/Defendant No.5 to raise this issue. The document-Power of Attorney is not relied by the Defendant No.5 in support of the claim that it created right, title or interest in favour of the concerned defendant. Moreso, the concerned Defendant in whose favour the Power of Attorney is created has not chosen to question the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The argument canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner Bank/Defendant No.5 regarding correctness of the order in relation to the Power of Attorney therefore, cannot be entertained. 5. Counsel for the Petitioners however, submits that for creating mortgage, the Petitioner-Bank had 3 relied on the Power of Attorney in question. That makes no difference. As a matter of fact, the Power of Attorney would be naturally an incidental document and not the only document, on the basis of which bank has advanced loan by mortgaging property. The real document on the basis of which the Petitioner has acted upon is the Development Agreement dated 23rd July, 1997. 6. Taking any view of the matter, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted in the fact situation of the present case. Dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)