1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1529 OF 2009 Smt.Changubai Vitthal Ughade & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shri Anil Vitthal Ughade & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the petitioners. Mr.S.R.Page for respondent nos.1 to 5. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th July 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who are the original defendants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents who are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the respondents for declaration and injunction. In the said suit an application was made by the respondents restraining the petitioners from creating any third party interests. The application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial Court. In an appeal preferred by the petitioners, the District 2 Court has interfered by allowing the appeal. Temporary injunction has been granted against the petitioners restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property or creating third party interests till the final disposal of the suit. 2. In the impugned order the learned District Judge has observed as under: ... In para 5 of written notes of argument, the defendants stated that they do not have any intention to create third party interest in respect of the suit land or any part there of. Accordingly, point nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative and proceed to pass the following order:... 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was no prima facie case made out by the respondents entitling them to an order of temporary injunction. He pointed out an averment in the petition that the aforesaid statement incorporated in the written arguments filed by the petitioners before the District Court was made by the said advocate without instructions of the petitioners and 3 therefore the petitioners had sent a letter dated 26th November 2008 to their advocate. He submitted that the stand taken by the learned advocate is contrary to the written statement. 4. I have considered the submissions. The concession which is recorded in the impugned order admittedly forms part of the written submissions filed by the advocate appearing for the petitioners. The advocate who submitted written arguments was admittedly appointed by the petitioners to argue their appeal. It is not the case of the petitioners that the said advocate was not authorised to argue the appeal or he was not authorised to file written arguments. It is pertinent to note that the certified copy of the impugned judgment of the District Court was received by the petitioners on 18th October 2008 and the said contention is purportedly raised by the petitioners by sending a letter to their advocate on 26th November 2008. Prima facie, it appears to me that the said contention raised by the petitioners is clearly an afterthought. It is very easy for any litigant to come out with such 4 a case. Admittedly, the advocate who filed the written arguments was authorised by the petitioners to appear, to argue and to file the written arguments. Only because a part of the written arguments filed by the advocate is found to be incovenient by the petitioners, now they cannot come out with a case that said advocate was not authorised to make such a statement. The only order which is passed against the petitioners is that pending the suit they are restrained from creating third party interests in respect of the suit property and from alienating the suit property. No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is rejected. However, all contentions of the parties in the pending suit are expressly kept open and the pending suit shall be decided without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (A.S.OKA,J)