: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.205 OF 2009 Sunanada Bhaskar Mhatre ... Appellant V/s. Arun Gopal Bhagat & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.S. Apte i/b S.S. Kanetkar for Appellant Mr.D.S. Mhaispurkar for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 Mr.A.S. Gadkari for Resp. No.7 Mr.S.U. Kamdar i/b Bipin Joshi for Resp. NO.8 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 8, 2010 P.C.: 1. The plaintiff has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of her application for interim relief. She has filed a suit for partition of the various properties which she claims she is entitled to, on the basis that she is a co-parcener. It appears that the plaintiff and the other co-owners executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 3. They in turn executed separate development agreements with Respondent Nos.7 and 8. They also executed a power of attorney in their favour. Buildings have been constructed in respect of the property which was to be developed under the agreements by the developers. It appears that on 19.4.2006, the IOD was granted to Defendant No.8 to erect 15 buildings, 7 of which are completed. Completion certificates have been issued in respect of 4 buildings which have been constructed and 585 flats have already been sold. Similarly, Defendant : 2 : No.7 has also constructed buildings and have sold the flats. The properties which have been developed are survey Nos.9A/1 & 26/1 and a part of survey No.52/2, as mentioned in the respective agreements with Defendant No.7 and Defendant No.8. 2. In my opinion, no interim relief can be granted in respect of these properties since third party rights have already been created. Whether these rights have been created after the cancellation of a power of attorney and what would be the effect if in fact the rights have been created after the cancelling it is required to be decided at the trial. 3. However, admittedly, certain properties which have been mentioned in the plaint have not been sold and are till today with the co-owners. 4. In view thereof, the status quo as of today will be maintained in respect of all other properties mentioned in the plaint except survey No.9A/1, 26/1 and 52/2 i.e. those properties mentioned in the agreements executed with Defendant Nos.7 and 8 which have been developed by defendant Nos.7 and 8. 5. Appeal from Order is disposed of accordingly. 6. In view of the above, civil application No.243 of 2009 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.