NEERA DIVAKAR BHOIR AND ANRversusEVERSMILE PROPERTIES PVT LTD AND ORS

                                                                           16-WP-949-2026.DOC

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 949 OF 2026


                      Neera Divakar Bhoir & anr.                            ..Petitioners

                              Versus

                      Eversmile Properties Pvt Ltd & Ors.               …Respondents


                      Mr. Sandeep Mishra, a/w Ms. Madhura Mulay, for Petitioners.

                      Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Suneet Tyagi, Ms
                           Gaytri Pinkyar, i/b Mr. Makarand Savant, for
                           Respondent No.1.


                                                 CORAM :       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                 DATE     : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026

                      Oral Order :-

                      1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.      The challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order

                      dated 07th August, 2025 passed by the learned Principal District

                      Judge, Thane in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 16/2025
SAINATH
SANJAY                whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against an order
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.10.03
14:51:20 +0530
                      passed by the learned Civil Judge thereby restraining the

                      defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 272/2022 from creating

                      third party interest in the suit property and from obstructing

                      the development and construction activities being carried out by

                      the plaintiff over the suit property, came to be dismissed.
                      SAINATH, PA                        1/4
                                                    16-WP-949-2026.DOC

3.      The learned Principal District Judge, however, has put the

plaintiff to the terms that, while seeking any development

permission in respect of the suit property or entering into any

transaction with a third party, the plaintiff shall disclose the

pendency of the litigation.

4.      The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking the relief that, the

suit agreement dated 26th March, 1987 together with the power

of attorney dated 26th March 1987 executed in its favour by the

defendants was valid, enforceable and binding upon the

defendants, and the notice dated 10 th January 2022 whereby

the said agreement was sought to be terminated, was illegal,

null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff.

5.      Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

submitted that Smt. Janabai Krishna Patil, predecessor-in-title

of the petitioners, has not issued the said notice. The factum of

execution of the development agreement and the power of

attorney by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, was

specifically disputed.

6.      A perusal of the said notice dated 10th January, 2022

indicates that, the Defendants No. 1 to 6 purported to terminate

the development agreement and the power of attorney dated 26 th

March, 1987. Implicit in the said notice of termination was an


SAINATH, PA                         2/4
                                                     16-WP-949-2026.DOC

admission of the factum of execution of the said development

agreement and the power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff.

7.      The Courts below on the basis of prima facie material to

show the existence and execution of the development agreement

and the power of attorney, which the Defendant Nos.1 to 6

sought to terminate, and the development at the suit premises,

have granted the interim relief.

8.      Such concurrent exercise of discretion by the Courts below

is not amenable to interference in exercise of this Court’s

supervisory jurisdiction, especially when there is prima facie

material to show that, the purported co-owners of the

predecessor-in-title of the petitioners sought to terminate the

development agreement and the power of attorney.

9.      The learned Principal District Judge has justifiably put the

plaintiff to the terms that, the plaintiff shall disclose the factum

of the pendency of the litigation while seeking permissions from

the Planning and the concerned Authorities and entering into

any transaction with a third party.

10.     Such an equitable order does not deserve interference in

exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

11.     The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed.




SAINATH, PA                         3/4
                                                   16-WP-949-2026.DOC

12.     The Trial Court is, however, requested to hear and decide

the suit as expeditiously as possible.


                                         [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                       4/4