1 A111-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.111 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2010 IN SUIT(L) NO.2079 OF 2010 1.Sanjay Maheshwari & Ors. ...Appellants vs. 1.Shyam Roopchand Jaisingh & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.A.Y.Bookwala, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amit Vyas and Ms.Nikita Ajwani i/b. M/s.Rajani Associates, for Appellants. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.Saraf, Rohan Cama i/b. Adhia & Adhia, for Respondents 1 & 2. Mr.Z.Andhyarujina with Ms.Azmin Irani i/b. Gajoria & Co., for Respondent no.8. Mr.I.A.Bagaria, for Respondent no.7. Mr.R.J.Mane, AGP for Respondent no.9. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 29th June,2011. 2 A111-11 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for Appellants. The appeal takes exception to the order dated 17.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs seeking interim orders. There were various interim orders claimed by the plaintiffs by the notice of motion. In substance, by the interim orders the plaintiffs were seeking order restraining the defendants from acting on the gift deed dated 15.7.2005, the power of attorney dated 11.2.2003 executed by the deceased Smt.Sitadevi and the Development Agreement. The main property in relation to which there is a dispute between the parties viz. the property known as Asha Studio was gifted by Smt.Sitadevi to defendant nos.1 to 4. Defendant nos.1 and 2 admittedly are the children of deceased Smt.Sitadevi and defendant 3 A111-11 nos.3 and 4 are her grand children from the son who predeceased her. The Gift deed is a registered document. The power of attorney was executed by the deceased Smt.Sitadevi in favour of defendant no.1 her son and a development agreement was executed by the deceased Smt.Sitadevi in favour of defendant no.8. On behalf of deceased Smt.Sitadevi that development agreement was signed by defendant no.8 on the basis of the power of attorney dated 11.2.2003. Thus, the principal reason why the plaintiffs challenge the power of attorney is to contend that defendant no.1 was not authorised to execute the development agreement on behalf of deceased Smt.Sitadevi. Both the documents which are principally challenged by the plaintiffs in the suit viz. Gift Deed dated 15.7.2005 and Development agreement dated 3.5.2003 are registered documents. As these two documents are registered documents, a presumption about regularity of execution of these documents arises 4 A111-11 because of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court will have to presume, unless contrary is proved, that these documents viz. Gift Deed dt.15.7.2005 and Development Agreement dt.3.5.2003 were duly executed and registered. The contrary can be proved by the defendants only by leading oral and documentary evidence and that can be done at the trail of the suit. Therefore, at prima facie stage, the Court will be fully justified in going by the presumption that attaches to the regularity of execution of these documents, and therefore, the Court cannot grant any interim relief to the plaintiffs which will prevent defendants from acting on the registered documents. The learned Single Judge has precisely done that. The learned Single Judge has observed that in view of the fact that the Gift Deed and the Development Agreement are registered documents, he cannot make any interim order which will prevent the defendants from acting on those documents. The learned Single 5 A111-11 Judge has also recorded that the plaintiffs are guilty of laches in approaching the Court challenging all the three documents. The learned Single Judge has observed that it is clear from the documents on record that the plaintiffs were aware of the existence of the Gift Deed as also the Development Agreement latest by December, 2008. The plaintiffs have filed this suit in the month of August,2010. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, declined to make any interim order in favour of the plaintiffs. We find that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the notice of motion in such a fact situation and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order. Hence, the appeal is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.) ---