Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.414 OF 2020
(CNR NO.MHCC010027682020)
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 758 OF 2017
Mr.Bhimsingh Lasaji Rajpurohit ..Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr.Srinivas Gangaram Chitla ..Defendant
AND
Mrs.Suman Gangaram Chitala ...Applicant
Appearances:
Ld.Adv Mr.Dorajiwala for Decree Holder.
Ld.Adv.Mr.Manoj Pandey for Obstructionist.
CORAM : HER HONOUR ADHOC JUDGE
SMT. C.V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.15)
DATE : 11th March, 2022
ORDER
1. This Chamber Summons is filed by obstructionist by name
Mrs.Suman Gangaram Chitala with request to stay execution of decree
dated 02/07/2018 passed against original defendant by name Shrinivas
Gangaram Chitala. It is her request that for proper adjudiction of
execution application she needs to be added as party. She has
independent right about property subject to attachment with these
prayers Chamber Summons is filed.
-- 1 of 5 --
Ch/s No.414/20 Order 2
2. It is the submission of obstructionist that recently before filing
Chamber Summons she came to know that the decreeholder has
obtained Judgment against defendant in Summary Suit No.758/17. The
said suit is decided exparte on 02/07/2018. In the execution application
attachment has been issued by misleading facts from the side of
decreeholder. The said obstructionists have independent and exclusive
right, title and possession over the property which is subject to
attachment. Therefore, she has also produced necessary documents for
adjudication of execution application on merit, and requested to add
her party in the execution application.
3. The decreeholder filed reply and submitted that the obstructionist
is the mother of Judgment Debtor/defendant, she has not disclosed the
said fact while presenting obstructionist application. This shows that
obstructionist has not appeared before the Court with clean hands.
Further, there is no document to support the contents of obstructionist
to show that she is exclusive owner and possessor of property subject to
attachment. Actually, obstructionist and original Judgment Debtor are
residing in the same premises as mother and son. The property stands
in the name of Judgment Debtor but this obstructoinist being mother of
Judgment debtor trying to save her son by misrepresenting facts before
the Court. The Judgment debtor is also in possession of property subject
to attachment but the said obstructionist by the hands in gloves with
Judgment debtor tried to held up the process of execution and
therefore, prayed to dismiss the Chamber Summons.
4. Obstructionist has filed some documents alongwith Chamber
Summons that is agreement for sale, copy of Index II, copy of license
-- 2 of 5 --
Ch/s No.414/20 Order 3
issued in her name, Release Deed etc. The advocate of obstructionist
submitted that while preparing release deed dated 28/6/2010 the
Judgment Debtor has released his share in the property. Therefore, the
applicant/obstructionist is exclusive owner of the property. The
advocate of Decree Holder submitted that the agreement to Sale cannot
be called as document of ownership. But for the sake of moment this
submission can be taken into consideration that agreement to sale
cannot be the document of ownership. But, it is the case of decree
holder himself that the Defendant/Judgment Debtor and mother are
owner of suit property. The said property is also mentioned in execution
application. Therefore, now decree holder cannot be said that
agreement to sale is not the document of ownership. The obstructionist
by giving documents in support of her Chamber Summons has shown
her interest and title in the property subject to attachment. The
advocate of obstructionist also placed reliance on the ratio of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Brahmdev Chaudhary Vs.Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal
and another AIR 1997 Supreme Court 856, in that citation the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it cannot be said that the
obstructionist can get his claim adjudicated only after loosing
possession. In the case in hand also possession is not given but from the
documents produced by obstructionist it appears that she has
independent right in the property. However, the decree against
defendant is money decree. On one hand the decree holder submitted
that the Judgment Debtor by hands in gloves that is mother tried to
held up the attachment. On the other hand, obstructionist submitted
that decree holder has obtained decree with hands in gloves with
Judgment debtor, just to decieve obstructionist. All these
objections/questions needs to be decided by giving opportunity to all
relevant. Therefore, considering interest of the obstructionist in the
-- 3 of 5 --
Ch/s No.414/20 Order 4
property, it is necessary to add her party in the execution application.
Till further order execution against subject property needs to be stayed.
Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.414/2020 is made absolute to the
extent to add obstructionist as party in the execution
proceeding.
2. Till further order/or till adjudication of claim of
obstructionist execution against subject attachment of
property is stayed.
3. Chambers Summons No.414/2020 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(C.V. PATIL)
Adhoc Judge,
Date : 11/03/2022 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 11/03/2022
Transcribed on : 15/03/2022
HHJ signed on : 16/03/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload
Date
Upload Time Name of Stenographer
17/03/2022 3.30p.m. Mrs.Jyoti Mane
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
No.)
HHJ Smt. C.V.Patil (CR
15)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
11/03/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O.
on
16/03/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on 17/03/2022
-- 4 of 5 --
Ch/s No.414/20 Order 5
-- 5 of 5 --