SHRI. RAKESH RAJENDRAKUMAR AGARWALversusSURESH KANTILAL JANI AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AS:6257

                                                                    65-WP-13483-2018.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
     Swapnil
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 13483 OF 2018
               Rakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal.                …       Petitioner
                    Vs.
               Suresh Kantilal Jani and Ors.                …       Respondents


               Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate (Thr. V.C.), Mr.
               Kishor Patil, Mr. Amol Mhatre, Ms. Sonal Dabholkar for the
               petitioner.

                                         CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                         DATE :        4th MARCH 2026

               ORDER :


               1.    This writ petition is filed by defendant no.1 to challenge

               the order passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first

               appellate court granting an injunction. The order of injunction

               restrains     the   petitioner   from   disturbing    the    plaintiffs’

               possession and alienating the suit property or making any

               changes to the suit property except according to the due

               process of law.


               2.    Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

               submits that both the courts have ignored the 7/12 extract in

               the name of the petitioner and recorded findings in favour of


                                                 1/4
                                              65-WP-13483-2018.docx


the plaintiffs by relying upon the pleadings in Special Civil

Suit No. 90 of 2010 filed by defendant nos. 2 to 10. The

petitioner, i.e. defendant no.1, claims through defendant nos.

2 to 10. He submits that the said suit is filed by defendant

nos. 2 to 10 seeking possession from the plaintiffs. Learned

senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that to

support the petitioner’s contentions on possession, 7/12

extracts were produced on record, which would indicate that

the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. Hence,

only based on the pleadings in the suit filed by defendant

nos. 2 to 10, both courts could not have granted an injunction

against the petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser through

defendant nos. 2 to 10. He, therefore, submits that the

impugned orders would warrant interference by this court.


3.   I have perused the papers of the petition, the suit is

filed by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to challenge the sale

deed dated 21st November 2013 executed by defendant nos.

2 to 10 in favour of defendant no.1. The plaintiffs seek to

protect their possession based on the title document of a

registered sale deed. The plaintiffs seek to challenge the sale

deed in favour of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the



                              2/4
                                                   65-WP-13483-2018.docx


petitioner’s documents would not confer any right, title, or

interest in the suit property in favour of the petitioner.


4.    A perusal of the findings recorded by both courts shows

that the courts have discussed the revenue records relied

upon by the petitioner. There is no dispute that defendant

nos. 2 to 10 have filed Special Civil Suit No. 90 of 2010 in

which they admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession. The

petitioner claims through defendant nos. 2 to 10. Hence,

based on the title documents relied upon by the plaintiffs,

both the courts have recorded prima facie findings in their

favour. So far as the revenue record is concerned, according

to both the courts, the same would not be sufficient to hold at

the interim stage that defendant no. 1 is in possession of the

suit property. The injunction granted by the trial court

restrains   the   petitioner   from   disturbing    the    plaintiffs’

possession without following due process of law. The

injunction also restrains the petitioner from creating third-

party rights in the suit property.


5.     Considering the nature of the prayers in the suit, both

courts have rightly granted the order of injunction to preserve

the status of the suit property. Both the courts have


                                3/4
                                                  65-WP-13483-2018.docx


concurrently recorded the prima facie findings in favour of the

plaintiffs. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the

reasons recorded in the impugned orders, warranting any

interference in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


6.    The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.




                                           [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                               4/4