: 1 : 7126-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7126 OF 2011 Shri Vilas Nivrutti Sasane & Anr. .. Petitioners v/s. Smt. Bhagerathi Marutrao Dedge & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Sachin S. Punde for the petitioners ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Petitioners were appointed as constituted attorney by three ladies who are plaintiffs in R.C. Suit No.715 of 2008 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune. The power of attorney on the strength of which the petitioners filed the said suit is at page 39 of the petition. A perusal of the power of attorney goes to show that various jobs were expected to be done by the petitioners under the said power of attorney including institution of the aforesaid suit in regard to properties mentioned at para 1A and 1B of plaint. In the power of attorney, there is one statement where the donars i.e. the plaintiffs have stated that they have executed Agreement to Sale in favour of the petitioners in regard to their : 2 : 7126-11-wp=.sxw share in aforesaid suit properties. 2. After institution of the aforesaid suit, for the reasons mentioned in application below Exh.100 in the aforesaid suit, the original plaintiffs claimed that they would prosecute the suit by themselves and the present petitioners should not prosecute the suit and they should withdraw from the said suit. That application was granted by order dated 5th April, 2011 by learned 10th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, The petitioners have challenged the said order. 3. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Punde for the petitioners at the stage of admission. Learned advocate Mr. Punde submitted that on account of text of the power of attorney and in particular assertions in the power of attorney that Agreement to Sale has been executed in favour of the petitioners a right is created in favour of petitioners in regard to the share of the plaintiffs in the aforesaid properties. According to petitioners as the original plaintiffs executed the agreement to sale in favour of the petitioners, said plaintiffs now cannot call upon the petitioners to be away from the said suit. Learned advocate Mr. Punde submitted that the petitioners’ right to work as a constituted attorney of the original plaintiffs : 3 : 7126-11-wp=.sxw cannot be taken away. 4. After having perused the impugned order, I am inclined to observe that the impugned order was rightly passed by the learned trial Judge. Merely because in the power of attorney there is a statement that Agreement to Sale is executed in favour of the petitioners that by itself will not create an interest in favour of the petitioners through the said power of attorney. The interest is created in favour of the petitioners on account of the Agreement to Sale to have a sale deed in their favour in accordance with the provisions of law. If the petitioners are interested in pressing the said Agreement to Sale, no doubt they will have to file a suit in the appropriate Court to demand enforcement of the said agreement. In my view, the argument advanced by learned advocate for the petitioners that by this power of attorney an interest is created in favour of the petitioners, cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition cannot be entertained. Same is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)