: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.180 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.799 OF 2009 Gokarn Shivram Shukla & Anr. .. Appellants V/s. Kaushik Premkumar Mishra .. Respondent Mr. J.M. D’Silva for the Appellants. Mr. S.H. Joshi for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 17 TH MARCH, 2010. P.C.: 1. A Regular Civil Suit No.48 of 1993 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palghar, for a declaration that the agreement and power of attorney in his favour dated 24th February, 1988, was binding on the appellants-defendants. An injunction was sought that the appellants-defendants be restrained from obstructing the respondent-plaintiff from carrying out further work. : 2 : 2. The trial Court has decreed the Suit on 28th April, 2004, by concluding that the Development Agreement of 4th February, 1988, and the power of attorney of the same date was binding on the defendants. Consequently, the trial Court restrained the defendants permanently from obstructing the plaintiff from completing the development work on the suit property. 3. Being aggrieved by this order, the defendants preferred an Appeal, being Civil Appeal No.36 of 2004, before the District Judge-2, Palghar, Dist. Thane. That Appeal has been dismissed on 6th August, 2008. 4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the plaintiff had conceded that the construction has been erected without the permission of the Competent Authority. It is further submitted that although the defendants are occupying the suit structure, their existence in the suit structure is jeopardized by the fact that the plaintiff had not obtained the requisite : 3 : permission for developing the suit property, as required under law. It is, therefore, submitted that the defendants having terminated the power of attorney by a public notice, the plaintiff was not entitled to continue in the suit property. 5. In my opinion, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed no error in decreeing the Suit. The defendants have not pleaded in their written statement regarding the construction being put up by the plaintiff being contrary to the sanctioned plan. Nor is there any pleading in the written statement to the effect that the sanction of the Competent Authority was not obtained prior to construction of the building. Undoubtedly, the defendants have been put in possession of certain parts of the developed structure in accordance with the agreement between the parties. 6. In my opinion, the defendants cannot obtain relief of an injunction against the plaintiff in a Suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the : 4 : requisite permission was not obtained by the plaintiff before constructing the building. No substantial question of law is involved in the present Second Appeal and is, therefore, dismissed. 7. In view of the above, Civil Application No.799 of 2009 pending in the Second Appeal does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous.