Disposed

Chotu Kallu Rehman and Ors. v. Shakeel Ahmed Iqbal Ah. Wasif and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2017CRA/363/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a civil revision application concerning eviction proceedings. The applicant claimed eviction targeted the wrong property, but the respondent agreed the decree would be executed only against the correctly described suit premises.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Executing Court to ensure the decree is executed only against the suit property described.

Chotu Kallu Rehman and Ors. Vs Shakeel Ahmed Iqbal… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

CRA363.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.363 OF 2016

¶5

Chotu Kallu Rehman and others … Applicants v/s Shakkel Ahmed Iqbal Ahmed Wasif and others … Respondents

¶6

Mr Mukesh Vashi with Ms Aparna Deodhar i/b M/s M.P. Vashi and Associates for Applicants.

¶7

Mr N.R. Bubna for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

¶9

DATE : JUNE 12, 2017

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Though this Civil Revision Application is shown on board

¶12

‘For Circulation’, it is heard finally.

¶13

This Civil Revision Application has been filed on behalf of

¶14

43 Applicants who were the original obstructionists before the Lower Court, which was the Executing Court. In this Civil Revision Application, the Applicants seek quashing of the judgment and order dated 21st March 2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.110 of 2014. For

1/3

VRD

CRA363.16

the purposes of deciding this Civil Revision Application, I need not go into the facts in detail, especially considering the submission made by Mr Vashi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. The basic contention raised before me by Mr Vashi was that the suit property has been described at page 16 of the paperbook as under :-

¶19

“The premises consisting of ground floor on C.T.S. No.1495/B/1 out of R.S.No.3A/2, admeasuring 210 feet x 90 feet situated in Islampura Ward, Malegaon.”

¶20

However, under the guise of this decree, the Applicants

¶21

are sought to be evicted who claim to be occupants of some other property.

¶22

M Bubna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, contended that if this is the grievance made by the Applicants, he is wiling to clarify and make a statement that the decree passed in R.C.S. No.325 of 1984 shall be strictly complied with and shall be executed only against the suit property described hereinabove. I must mention here that the suit property is situated on C.T.S. No.1495/B/1 whereas the Applicants VRD 2/3

¶23

2/3

¶24

CRA363.16

¶25

claim to be occupants on C.T.S. No.1495A. Considering the statement made Mr Bubna, this Civil Revision application can be disposed of in view of the aforesaid statement and with a direction to the Executing Court to ensure that the decree passed in R.C.S. No.325 of 1984 is executed against the suit property described hereinabove.

¶26

Civil Revision Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶28

3/3

¶29

VRD

Chotu Kallu Rehman and Ors. v. Shakeel Ahmed Iqbal Ah. Wasif and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chotu Kallu Rehman and Ors. v. Shakeel Ahmed Iqbal Ah. Wasif and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Vishnu Sapkal Vs St. Annes Girls High School and Anr.

Jagannath Kashiram Shirke (Since Decd) through Lrs. Manoj J. Shirke Vs Harishchandra Gopal Parab and Ors.

Shri. Abbas Mohammed Tamboli Vs Shri. Champalal Jasraj Oswal

Mukesh Trambaklal Mehta Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Ajay Dinesh Shrivastav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Maruti Amritrao Mahangale Vs Shri Sunil Ram Jogade and Ors.