: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.996 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1214 OF 2008 Mr.Ramesh @ Ramnath Gopal Buskute & Ors. ..Appellants. Vs. Mr.Jude Stephen Pereira & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.S.Redekar for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : The impugned order warrants no interference. 2. It is pertinent to note that the Defendants/Appellants are represented by the same Advocates. Admittedly, the agreement between Defendant no.1 and Defendant nos.13 and 14 was executed by Defendant no.1 in respect of the entire property on the basis of the release deed allegedly executed by Defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 and the mother of Defendant nos.5, 6 and 7. The parties to the release deed deny having executed the same. 3. Evidence will be required as to on what basis : 2 : then did Defendant no.1 enter into an agreement with Defendant nos.13 and 14 for the sale of the entire property. Defendant no.1 himself referred to the power of attorney in the agreement with Defendant nos.13 and 14. It is difficult to understand how he can join the donors of the same though he does not deny the validity of the power of attorney. To say the least, these are aspects which require evidence. 4. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. The Civil Application also stands disposed of. ***