:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5416 OF 2007 Arjun Pandurang Kale .. Petitioner. Vs. Ranjana A.Kale & Ors. .. Respondents. Ms.Prachi Tatake for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2007 passed in the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant by which the appeal has been allowed and the order impugned in the appeal dated 6.12.2006 passed on the application at Exhibit-5 by the trial Court in regular civil suit No.1598 of 2006 has been set aside. The trial Court vide the order dated 6.12.2006 had granted an injunction against the respondent-defendant, as prayed in the application at Exhibit-5. I perused the impugned order. It appears that in regular civil suit no.1420 of 1995 the parties had filed consent terms and the suit was disposed of in terms thereof by which the land in dispute was allotted to the share of the respondents. I perused the consent terms and more particularly clause (d) therein. It :2: :2: :2: is clear from the perusal of the consent terms that the petitioner has relinquished his right in the property which was allotted to the share of the respondents, namely, the suit property in the instant proceedings. The appellate court has considered it and made reference thereto in paragraph 2 of the impugned order. It further appears that another regular civil suit no.1607 of 2000 filed by the petitioner seeking permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from dealing with the suit property in any manner had also been withdrawn by the petitioner. Ms.Tatake, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the General Power of Attorney was executed by respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioners giving power to the petitioners to sell the suit property on behalf of the petitioners and on the basis thereof she further submits that by executing the power of attorney the respondent has conferred the right of pre-emption in favour of of the petitioners. It is difficult to accept such submissions. The power of attorney was executed only for limited purpose and it does not create any such right in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances for the reasons recorded in the impugned order I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. :3: :3: :3: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)