1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO.2619 OF 2011. IN WRIT PETITION NO.4404 of 2010. (Sou. Shobha M. Khandelwal Vs. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., and others) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The possession of the auction purchaser is not in dispute. Shri A.V. Khare, learned Counsel states that as petitioner has already challenged the action of respondent no.1, the auction purchaser should be restrained from creating any third party interest and if any minor changes are made in the property, the same should not affect the right of the petitioner. Shri P.S. Patil learned counsel for respondent No.3 points out that respondent no.3 purchased the property for his own residence and has already carried out and made renovations but some minor work is still 2 necessary. He states that as petition is admitted respondent No.3 will not create any third party interest in the property and shall not claim any relief in equity in the matter, as against present petitioner. In view of fair statement made by the learned counsel, we direct that the respondent No.3 shall not create any third party interest or encumbrance on the property purchased by him in any manner to the prejudice of petitioner. Renovation or minor repairs carried out by the respondent No.3 shall not cloth him with any additional right, either in law or in equity against petitioner in the present matter. However, he can claim compensation or other relief therefor as against respondent No.1 who has put property to auction. The application is, thus, partly allowed accordingly. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE NSN