1 AO-666-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 666 OF 2010 with CVIL APPLICATION NO. 852 OF 2010 Mrs. Saranga Anil Aggarwal ... Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) vs. Manik Vithu Patil & Ors. ... Respondents (Orig. defendants) S/Shri P.K.Dhakephalkar a/w Saket Mane, i/b. M/s. Vidhi Partners, Advocates, for the appellant. S/hri SandeshD. Patil, i/b. Sidhivinayak M. Tulsankar, Advocates, for the respondent No.4. Shri G.S.Hegde, i/b. Shri G.S.Hegde & Associates, for the respondent No.11. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 13th September, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, who are present. 2. The appeal is filed by the original plaintiff against refusal of temporary injunction in Special Civil Suit No.191 of 2008 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai. According to the plaintiff, on 4.5.1994, the defendant Nos. 1 to 8, who are the original owners of the suit property situated at Sasunavaghar Tal. Vasai, District Thane, had entered into an agreement for sale in favour of the 2 AO-666-10.sxw plaintiff and had also executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff. Whole of the consideration amount was also paid by the plaintiff to the owners. On the basis of the agreement for sale and the power of attorney, the plaintiff executed a conveyance dated 12.3.2007 in her own name and thus claims to have become owner of the suit property. The defendant Nos. 9 and 10 issued a public notice on 22.2.2008 calling objections, if any, to their proposal to purchase the suit property from the defendants Nos. 1 to 8. According to the plaintiff, she replied and informed the defendants Nos. 9 and 10 that she was the owner of the suit property. Inspite of that, on 2.4.2008, the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 got sale deed executed from the defendant No.1. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title and the application was filed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in her possession. It is material to note that the defendants Nos. 1 to 8, who are the original owners, did not file any reply nor they filed any written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos. 9 and 10 only claimed to be bonafide purchasers for value and, according to them, they are also put in possession. 3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, it will not be necessary at this stage to enter into the question as to who is in possession of the property because the plaintiff as well as the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 purchased 3 AO-666-10.sxw the same for the purpose of making development over the suit property. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following directions would met the ends of justice :- (i) The trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the Special Civil Suit No.191 of 2008 as early as possible and preferably, within one year. (ii) The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 10 shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit property and shall not create any third party interest in respect of the same pending the suit. The Appeal and the Application stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)