1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 478 OF 2009 A.M.Builders and Developers & Ors. ... Appellants Vs. Mrs. Qusiva Zahir Shaikh & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.J.Thorat,Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Anil C. Singh a/w Mr. Anil Yadav i/b. Mr. V.V.Mishra, Advocates, for the respondent No1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 12th April, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants before this Court are the original defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were subsequently impleaded as defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The defendant no.1 is a firm of which defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. They are the builders. The plaintiff claims that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had sold the suit flat to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.40 lakh under a registered sale deed dated17.10.2006 when the building was still under construction and she was also put in possession. The 2 plaintiff contended that some persons approached the police contending that the plaintiff had got some documents executed about the property while they were the tenants and actual occupants of the property. She also apprehended disturbance and interference in her possession by the defendants. Accordingly, she filed S.C. Suit No.7 of 2007 seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants. She also took out Notice of Motion No.9/2007 seeking temporary injunction of the same nature. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 did not file any reply. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5, who were subsequently impleaded,filed the reply and, according to them, the plaintiff is related to underworld don Dawood and she had falsely got sale deed executed in her favour and she is not in actual possession. 3. As noted above, the defendant nos. 1 to 3, who are the builders, did not file any reply and did not challenge the execution of the registered sale deed. The sale deed clearly shows that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had received consideration of Rs.40 lakh. That receipt was admitted before the Sub-Registrar before whom the document was registered. The signatures of the executants of the sale deed are also not disputed. Besides the sale deed, there is also a possession receipt executed by the vendors to the effect that possession was actually given, though the said document is in dispute. Admittedly, the trial Court had appointed a Commissioner and the Commissioner’s report also supported the actual 3 possession of the plaintiff over this property. Taking into consideration these circumstances, the trial Court allowed the Notice of Motion and granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, there is nothing to indicate that the trial court has exercised the discretionary powers illegally and wrongly. If the plaintiff had got the sale deed executed by force or by using some illegal methods, the question can be looked into at th time of final hearing of the matter. If some crime was committed in respect of that, the parties are at liberty to move the police authorities for taking action as per law. Anyhow, at this stage, there is nothing to show that the trial Court had exercised the discretion in granting temporary injunction wrongly or without any prima facie evidence in favour of the plaintiff. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, C.A. No.581 of 2009 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)