Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 Order on Exe Appln. in Suit no.301-88
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
ORDER ON OBSTRUCTION APPLICATION IN EXECUTION
APPLICATION NO. 113 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 301 OF 1988
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO. 3861 OF 1988)
1. Pravin Jayantilal Chauhan & 3 ors. ]... Decree holder/
Orig. plaintiffs
Versus
1. Aminaben Attaulla Khan & 9 ors. ]... Judgment Debtor/
Orig. Defendants
AND
Tushar Vijay Mandanekar ]... Applicant /
Obstructionist
Coram : Dr. M. S. Deshpande, Judge
(Court Room no. 01)
Date : 20th March, 2019.
Ms. Preeti Shah, advocate for Decree holder / original plaintiff.
Mr. R. R. Tiwari, advocate for applicant / obstructionist.
ORDER
1. The applicant Mr. Tushar Vijay Mandanekar moved this
application raising his obstruction to execute the decree in respect of
the premises i.e. flat no. 8, 2nd floor, Mantriwadi, Sainath Road, Malad
(W), Mumbai – 400 064. According to him, the said premises cannot be
attached in execution of the decree since it is a tenanted premises and is
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Order on Exe Appln. in Suit no.301-88
subject matter of a suit pending in Small Cause Court, Bandra.
2. Heard, the respective advocates. The learned advocate for
the obstructionists made submissions in consonance with the
contentions raised in obstruction petition. On the other hand, the
learned advocate for decree holders submitted that the obstruction has
been raised in order to frustrate the decree.
3. The aforesaid flat no. 8 has been already attached in
furtherance of this execution petition for recovery of certain amount.
The ultimate result of the attachment of the said flat would be the sale
of the flat and recovery of decreetal amount from the sales price and its
adjustment towards the satisfaction of the decreetal amount. The
obstructionists is not claiming any rights more than the tenancy rights
in the said flat i.e. a right to use and occupy the said flat. Such rights
will not be curtailed by the attachment and sale of the said flat. The
person, whosoever is landlord of the said flat is not coming before the
Court to raise any obstruction. There is no triable issue raised by the
obstructionist. Under such circumstances the obstruction is required to
be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
1. The obstruction application is dismissed.
Sd/
(Dr. M. S. Deshpande)
Judge,
Date : 20.03.2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 20.03.2019
Transcribed on : 20.03.2019
Checked by HHJ on : 22.03.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 22.03.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Order on Exe Appln. in Suit no.301-88
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 22.03.2019 at 6.10 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. Gayatri P. Acharekar
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. M. S. Deshpande
C.R. no.01
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
20/03/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
22/03/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
22/03/2019
-- 3 of 3 --