1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 475 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 577 OF 2009 Naresh Parshuram Patil & Anr. ....Appellants Versus Parshuram Anant Patil(since deceased) & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Sandesh Patil for the Appellants. Mr. D. K. Ghaisas for Respondent No.1(a) & 1(b). CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 27TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. Heard, Mr Sandesh Patil, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Ghaisas, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1(a) and 1(b). 2. The Appellants are the Original Plaintiffs and the Respondents are Original Defendants. The suit is for declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 15th July, 2005 executed by the Original Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 with respect to land and property bearing Old Survey No.218, Hissa No.17, New Survey no. 194, , admeasuring about 10 Guntas and situate at Village Navghar, Bhayander (E), Tal. & Dist. Thane is illegal, ultra-vires, void ab-initio. The Declaration also claimed that the permissions/authorizations granted by Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in respect of the proposed construction on the suit property is illegal and void ab-initio. Permanent injunction is also claimed for restraining the Defendants from carrying construction or creating third party interest in the suit property. 2 3. The Appellants also preferred application at Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction in terms of permanent injunction mentioned above. The Trial Court by the order impugned in the present Appeal from Order dismissed the Appellants’ application. 4. The Appellants/Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) are the sons of Parshuram. The suit property originally belonged to one Anant Patil. Anant Patil had seven daughters and three sons including the Appellants’ father- Parshuram. Mr.Sandesh Patil, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that the above said seven daughters of Anant Patil have already filed regular Civil Suit No.578 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Thane against their brothers including the Appellants’ father –Parshuram. The Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2 is a party to the Suit. He further submits that the subject matter of the suit is a Development Agreement dated 8th July, 2005 and Power of Attorney dated 15th July, 2005 executed by the Appellants’ father- Parshuram in favour of Respondent No.2. He lastly submitted that in this Suit, the Trial Court at the instance of the above sisters/Respondent Nos.5 to 12, allowed the construction to go on, however, restrained the Respondent No.2 from creating third party interest in the suit property. 5. In the present proceeding, the Appellants have not challenged the Development Agreement dated 8th July, 2005 however, Power of Attorney dated 15th July, 2005 is challenged. It is submitted that the Development Agreement could not be challenged for want of knowledge. 6. The fact stated above reveals that there is already injunction in force restraining Respondent No.2 from creating third party interest in the suit property, therefore, there is no need to pass prohibitive orders in the present proceedings against Respondent No.2. The Appellants’ interest in my opinion is sufficiently protected by the interim order in Civil Suit No.578 of 2007 filed by the Appellants’ 3 father’s seven sisters viz. Respondent Nos.5 to 12. 7. Since the subject matter of the Special Civil Suit No.578 of 2007 and present Regular Civil Suit 309 of 2007 filed by Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 and the Appellants’ respectively is the same and the parties are also same, it is advisable to club these suits and hear them together. The Appellants are at liberty to file application before District Court, Thane for necessary orders in this regard. 8. This Appeal from Order is not been entertained as already there is injunction in favour of Respondent Nos.5 to 12 against Respondent No.2 in Special Civil Suit No.578 of 2007 and Appellants’ interest is being protected. It is made clear that in the event, Respondent Nos.5 to 12 compromising their dispute with Respondent No.2, the Appellants are at liberty to apply afresh to the Trial Court in this regard. With the above observations, the Appeal from Order is disposed of. 9. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.577 of 2009 and the Civil Application (St.) No.8466 of 2008 will not survive and therefore, the same are disposed of. (R. V. MORE, J.)