1 wp9395.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9395 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.P. Latange, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. B.S. Shinde, advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 6. 1. Heard Advocates Mr. V.P. Latange for petitioner, Mr. V.S. Bedre for respondent no.1 and Mr. B.S. Shinde for respondent nos. 2 to 6. Advocate Mr. Shinde is seeking some time to file reply affidavit, however, Mr. Bedre is opposing the said request and contended that the interim relief is operating against the respondents. 2. Application under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code filed by dependents in Special Civil Suit No. 267 of 2009 has been rejected on 18.08.2010 by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. This suit is filed by respondent no.1 for declaration that the alleged power of attorney executed by him in favour of other petitioners and the respondent nos.2 and 3 in the Petition and the sale deed in pursuance thereof executed on 2 wp9395.10 21.12.2004 in favour of the petitioner is not binding upon him. 3. Earlier Regular Civil Suit no. 632/1983 filed by petitioner against the respondent no.1 was for recovery of arrears of rent and for possession. That suit was decreed on 15.04.1999 and that decree has been maintained by this Court. However, in the meanwhile respondent no.1- tenant claimed to have purchased 3/7th share in tenanted premises, and therefore, filed Special Civil Suit no. 67 of 1995 (latter renumbered as 890 of 2000) for partition and separate possession. That suit has been decreed and Regular Civil Appeal against it, has been dismissed. The petitioner and the respondent nos. 2 to 6 claimed that Second Appeal in the matter is still pending. 4. In this situation, the petitioner claims that the respondent no.1 has sold said 3/7th share purchased by him back to petitioner. Special Civil Suit no. 267 of 2009, therefore has been filed in this background. 5. It is apparent that the controversy involved in Special Civil Suit no. 267 of 2009 is different and based on the subsequent events in the matter i.e. execution of power of attorney by the respondent no.1 and then the sale deed executed by this authorised attorney in favour of petitioner. Trial Court has therefore correctly appreciated the facts and Section 10 of Civil Procedure 3 wp9395.10 Code has no application. 6. Looking to previous history of the matter and fact that the petitioner is fighting for possession since 1983, the proceedings in Special Civil Suit no. 267 of 2009 are expedited and the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. 7. With these directions and observations, the present petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 21.03.2011 gas/wp9395.10