ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.398 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.398 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.398 OF 2008 IN IN IN SPECIAL SPECIAL SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO.690 OF 2007 CIVIL SUIT NO.690 OF 2007 CIVIL SUIT NO.690 OF 2007 Albert Thomas D’Silva & Ors. ...Appellants. Vs. Vinod Waman Mestry & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.R.P.Joshi for the Appellants. Mr.Atul Damle for Respondent Nos.3 to 6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 26th September, 2008. : 26th September, 2008. : 26th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Appellants who are the original Plaintiffs filed a Special Civil Suit No.690 of 2007, for declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 04/08/1995 executed by the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Predecessor in title of Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 and Defendant No.6 in favour of Defendant No.3 is fabricated and bogus. The Appellants also filed an application at Exhibit 5 for seeking temporary injunction against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ( 2 ) restraining them from transferring, alienating and creating third party interest etc. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the Appellants Application at Exhibit 5 and therefore, the present Appeal from Order. 3. The main contention of the Appellants is that the power of attorney dated 04th August, 1995 is fabricated document and the Respondent No.3 in pursuant to the fabricated document could not have conveyed the suit property to Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court in paragraph No.13 page 22 observed that by the Power of Attorney, the plaintiffs conferred all the powers on Defendant No.3 to deal with the suit property, including authority to sell the same. It was also observed that the Power of Attorney was duly signed by the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant No.6 and the plaintiff No.3 and the same was attested by two witnesses. The signature of Plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and Defendant No.6 and the husband of Plaintiff No.3 have been identified by one Prakash Madkaikar, Advocate. The Trial Court also tallied the signatures of the Plaintiff Nos.1, 2 on the plaint and the Vakalatnama and signature of defendant No.6 on application at Exhibit 17 with their signatures on ( 3 ) power of attorney dated 4th August, 1995 and came to the prima facie conclusion that the signatures on power of attorney are of Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Defendant No.6. I do not see any error in approach adopted by the learned Trial Court. Be that as it may, the allegations of the Plaintiffs that the document of power of attorney is fabricated and bogus can be decided only at the time of hearing of the suit. In view of above, I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Appeal from Order is dismissed accordingly. ( R. V. MORE, R. V. MORE, R. V. MORE, J.) J.) J.)