1 wp-8936-2011 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8936 of 2011 Akhtar Sattar Satarmaker & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Mustak Satarmaker & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sandesh Patil for the Petitioners Mr. Ashish Mehta for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 18th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 24-8-2011 passed by the Learned District Judge-3, Sangli, by which Order the Appeal being Misc Civil Appeal No.125 of 2011 came to be dismissed and resultantly, the Order dated 1-7-2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Miraj, on Application Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 37 in Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2011 for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioners came to be confirmed. 2 There is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below on the aspect of the dis-entitlement of the Plaintiffs for the grant of the discretionary relief. 3 The Petitioners herein who are the original Plaintiffs had filed 2 wp-8936-2011 Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2011 seeking injunction restraining the Defendants i.e Respondents herein from interfering with their possession and for a declaration that the power of attorney has been cancelled by the Plaintiffs vide notice dated 23-7-2008. Both the Courts below in view of the fact that the said power of attorney has already been acted upon in view of the Sale deed executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of one Upadhyay and thereafter the Sale Deed executed by the Defendants in favour of the Defendant No.5 to 7, held that the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs by way of application for temporary injunction could not be granted. The Courts below have also taken into consideration the fact that out of the sale proceed the loan taken by the Plaintiff No.1 and his brothers i.e Defendant Nos.1 to 4 has been satisfied. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the principles of law as enunciated by this Court in the Judgment reported in 1992(1) MLR 791 in the matter of Vithaldas Lotlikar Vs. Jose Meniso Godinho, wherein it has been laid down that the Power of Attorney once utilised would not terminate or cease in relation to future acts which are only consequential to the previous acts, already done. Both the courts below in view of the fact that the sale deed was already executed in favour of Defendant No.1 in the year 2000 held that the said Judgment would be applicable in the facts of the present case. 4 The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners sought to make submissions 3 wp-8936-2011 on the basis of the sale deed as well as the documents annexed thereto stating that the sale deed in question has in fact has been executed by making a false declaration before the registering authorities. It is not necessary to go into the said contentions at this stage in the light of the finding recorded by both the Courts below. The Petitioners would be entitled to raise the said contentions at the hearing of the suit. It is further required to be noted that the Application Exhibit 60 was filed by the Defendant Nos.5 to 7 for police protection so as to protect their possession. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court by the order dated 20-10-2011. A copy of which is produced by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 for my perusal and having perused the same, in my view, there is no irregularity or infirmity committed by the courts below for this Court to interdict in the discretion exercised by the Courts below. 5 In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)