Bombay High Court
Dimples Infra vs Heer Mehta Landmark Developers ... on 7 January, 2022
Bench: B.P. Colabawalla
7. IAL 87-22.doc
LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
LAXMI SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Date: 2022.01.10
16:31:09 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 87 OF 2022
IN
COMM. EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 264 OF 2020
IN
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 49 OF 2019
IN
COMM. SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1030 OF 2019
Dimple Infra ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Dimple Infra ...Plaintiff
Versus
Heer Mehta Landmark Developers ... Defendant
......
Mr. Rashid Khan with Priyanka Kothari i/b Vinali P. Bhaidkar for the
Applicants.
Pinky Sharma i/b V. M. Jhaveri for the Defendant.
.....
CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.
DATE : 07th JANUARY, 2022
P.C.:
1. The above Application has been filed seeking permission of
the Court to amend the Warrant for Sale by including property bearing
CTS No. 23 (part), admeasuring about 2373.75 sq. mtrs. as described in
the Warrant of Attachment.
2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff
submitted that the above Execution Application is filed seeking the
Laxmi 1/3
7. IAL 87-22.doc
execution of decree dated 12th December, 2019 passed in the above
Summary Suit for an amount of Rs. 8.58 Crores. The Execution
Application enlists the schedule of immovable properties of the
Judgment Debtor. At serial no. (i) the property bearing CTS No.23
(part), admeasuring about 2373.75 sq. mtrs. and CTS No.20 (part),
admeasuring about 83.74 sq. mtrs. were described (amongst others).
Thereafter, a Warrant of Attachment was also issued under Order XXI,
Rule 43 and 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against Judgment
Debtor. The Warrant of Attachment dated 18 th March, 2021 was duly
executed by the office of the Sheriff of Mumbai on 25 th March, 2021.
After executing the Warrant of Attachment, the bailiff has handed over
the joint Site Report dated 25th March, 2021 in which the said property
bearing CTS No.23 (part), admeasuring about 2373.75 sq. mtrs. was
mentioned. However, another report that was filed by the bailiff with
the Prothonotary and Senior Master inadvertently missed out the
aforesaid property and it is in these circumstances, that an amendment
of the Warrant for Sale is sought on the grounds more particularly set
out in the Interim Application.
3. The Judgment Debtor has fairly stated that the aforesaid
property bearing CTS No. 23 (part), admeasuring about 2373.75 sq.
mtrs. is inadvertently missed out and ought to be included in the
Laxmi 2/3
7. IAL 87-22.doc
Warrant of Sale. She fairly stated that the Judgment Debtor has no
objection if the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a).
4. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the fair stand
taken by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Judgment
Debtor, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)
which reads thus:
"(a) The applicant be allowed to amend the Warrant for
sale by including property bearing CTS No. 23 (part),
admeasuring about 2373.75 sq. mtrs. as described in the
Warrant for Attachment."
5. The Interim Application is disposed of accordingly. No
order as to costs.
6. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order
digitally signed by the Personal Assistant /Private Secretary/Associate
of this Court.
(B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)
Laxmi 3/3
