: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.6499 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.426 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO.4859 OF 2006 Dilip Pal ....Appellant V/s. The Bombay Gow Rakshak Mandal & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.M.A. Choudhari for the Appellant. Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Counsel with Mr.Z.A. Jariwala with Ms.Jyoti Ghag i/b M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 3RD APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. The learned Judge has granted an injunction restraining the Appellant/original Defendant No.1 from entering, trespassing, encroaching upon the suit property and/or in any manner disturbing, obstructing or interfering with the possession, occupation, enjoyment and use of the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. 2. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has : 2 : in detail referred to the litigation between the Respondents/Plaintiffs and the erstwhile tenants in respect of the suit property. These litigations were finally settled between the Plaintiffs and the tenants. 3. The present suit was filed by the Respondents against the Appellant. The Appellant contends that he was a power of attorney holder of the erstwhile tenants. He states that the power of attorney was executed in the year 1991. The power of attorney is not produced. In any event, the learned counsel for the Appellant has been unable to explain how he derives any right in respect of the suit property based on a power of attorney from the tenants. 4. The Appellant contends that there was no settlement between the tenants and the Respondents in the said earlier proceedings. It is alleged that even the payment of Rs.41,00,000/- alleged to have been made was not in fact made. Neither the consent terms nor the receipt of the consideration has been challenged by the parties to the said proceedings i.e. the erstwhile tenants. If at all any grievance is to be made regarding the existence or validity of the consent terms or the alleged non-payment of the : 3 : amounts mentioned therein, it is for the erstwhile tenant to do so. The Appellant has no right in that regard as a mere holder of an alleged power or attorney. 5. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed.