Bombay High Court
SANTOSH SEVU PAWAR THROUGH ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY M.P. ZENDEversusMANOHAR RAMAN PATIL AND KOLI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court declined to interfere with the existing injunction orders and disposed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner challenged concurrent injunction orders restraining the respondents from creating any third‑party interest in a suit property, alleging that the underlying sale deed was void because the power of attorney used to execute it had terminated upon the death of one vendor. The petitioner also claimed that full consideration had not been received. The respondents contended that the consideration of Rs.1 lakh each had been paid and encashed, and that any dispute over the deceased vendor’s share was an internal matter not warranting an injunction. The High Court observed that, although the petitioner's contentions had some merit, the interim injunctions had been in force for a long period and were discretionary orders of the lower courts. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the injunctions and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within one year. The writ petition was therefore disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the injunction restraining the creation of third‑party interest in the suit property is valid in view of the alleged termination of the power of attorney upon the vendor's death.
- Whether the sale deed executed under the contested power of attorney is void or enforceable.
- Whether the receipt of consideration by the parties affects the propriety of the injunction.
- Whether a higher court may set aside discretionary interim injunction orders that have been in force for an extended period.
Subjects
- injunction
- power of attorney
- sale deed
- validity
- consideration
- third party interest
- interim order
- civil procedure
- expeditious trial
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:38278
Diksha Rane 903 WP 18550 2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.18550/2024
SANTOSH SEVU PAWAR THROUGH
ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY M.P. ZENDE ..PETITIONER
VS
MANOHAR RAMAN PATIL & KOLI & ORS ..RESPONDENTS
Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w. Adv. Hrishikesh Nabar for
petitioner.
Adv. Rahul Thakar for respnodents.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the
concurrent orders of injunction granted against the defendant not to
create third party interest in the suit property. The suit is challenging
the transaction of sale made in favour of the defendants by the
original vendors and the legal heirs of one of the vendors. The
contention before the Civil Court primarily is that the Power of
Attorney holder of the vendor has executed the sale deed, however,
one of the vendor had expired before the sale deed was executed and
Page 1 of 3
18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 903 WP 18550 2024.docx
as such, the power of attorney had come to an end viz-a-viz one of
the vendors. In this background, it is stated that the sale deed
executed is bad in law. It is also contended that entire consideration
amount is not received particularly the consideration of cash amount
is not received.
3. However, learned counsel challenging the impugned order
before this Court has taken me through the impugned order and the
Power of Attorney and submits that there is no dispute as regards the
cheque payment of Rs.1 lakh each being received by the parties.
Cheque payment is given to each person in this name and there is no
dispute that those amounts are encashed. He submits that there is
inter se disputes between the parties as to the consideration being
paid to one of the persons who has expired, and the consideration to
be paid to the legal heirs. He also submits that the consideration
having being received and the Power of Attorney having executed the
sale deed, at the highest the sale deed may be effected qua only one
person and not for other plaintiffs. In any event, he submits that all
the parties have taken consideration. In this situation, no injunction
order ought to have been passed against the defendant.
4. Having perused the documents although prima facie it
appears that the petitioner may have some substance in the
submissions but considering that the interim order is in force for a
long period and both the Courts have concurrently granted the
injunction and the injunction is limited to not to create third party
Page 2 of 3
18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 903 WP 18550 2024.docx
interest, this Court would not interfere with the discretionary orders
of Courts below as they are in force for a long period.
5. I am informed by the counsel that the suit is at the stage of
evidence and the parties agree before me that they will not seek
unnecessary adjournments and will co-operate with the Court in
deciding the suit. The Court thus, directs the Trial Court to decide
the suit expeditiously, and endeavour be made to dispose of the suit
within a period of one year.
6. With these observations, the present petition stands
disposed.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Page 3 of 3
18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/09/2026 17:50:22
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.