Bombay High Court
Oves Ahmed Siddiqui vs Pervez Minocher Batliwala And Ors on 8 March, 2022
Bench: N. R. Borkar
1/4
21-cwp-2321-21.doc
Digitally
signed by
DINESH
SADANAND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DINESH
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA Date:
2022.03.09
14:43:02
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
+0500
WRIT PETITION NO. 2321 OF 2021
Oves Ahmed Siddiqui ...Petitioner.
V/s.
Pervez M. Batliwala and ors. ...Respondents.
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar and Mr. Mittal
Munoth i/b Mr. Chandrachud i/b Mr. Rajendera Rathod for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Mr. Jamsheed Master i/b Ms Natasha Bhot for
Respondent Nos.1 to 6g.
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 08.03.2022.
P.C. :
1. This petition takes an exception to the order dated
02.06.2021 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes
Court, Bombay below Exhibit-12 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 429
of 2019.
2. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein had fled the suit for
eviction and possession against the respondent No.7. The Trial
Court dismissed the suit. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 fled appeal
against the judgment and order of the Trial Court dismissing the
suit. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/4
21-cwp-2321-21.doc
The said decree was put into execution and warrant of possession
was issued.
3. The petitioner, who claims to be in possession of cabin ad-
measuring about 150 sq. ft in suit premises had fled an
application before the Executing Court purportedly under Order
21, Rule 97 read with 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
Executing Court dismissed the said application by order dated
25.09.2019. The petitioner fled the appeal against the order
dated 25.09.2019 being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 429 of 2019.
The said appeal is still pending before the Court of Small Causes
(Appellate Bench).
4. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of appeal
and in violation of the order passed by this Court dated
16.04.2021 in Suo Motu PIL No.1 of 2021, the respondent Nos.1 to
6 got the decree executed on 27.04.2021. The petitioner had thus
fled an application at Exhibit-12, inter alia, praying that status
quo as existing on the date of fling the appeal be restored. The
learned Appellate Court rejected the said application by the order
impugned.
Dinesh S. Sherla 2/4
21-cwp-2321-21.doc
5. By order dated 30.6.2021, this Court (Coram M.S. Karnik, J.)
directed the respondents not to deal with or dispose of or create
any third party interest or otherwise part with the possession of
the property in question.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions,
seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to fle an
application for restoration of possession after the decision of the
appeal. He submits that the hearing of appeal may be expedited
and interim order passed by this Court be continued till the
decision of appeal.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, leave
as prayed for is granted. Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn
with liberty to the petitioner to fle an application for restoration of
possession after the decision of appeal.
8. As regards continuation of interim order passed by this
Court, the petitioner is at liberty to fle application in that respect
before the Appellate Court. However, the interim order passed by
this Court dated 30.06.2021 shall remain in operation for a period
of two weeks from today.
Dinesh S. Sherla 3/4
21-cwp-2321-21.doc
9. The Appellate Court shall endeavour to decide the appeal
fled by the present petitioner on its own merits, as early as
possible and in any case within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. Needless to mention that the Appellate Court shall decide
the application / ad-interim application, on its own merits and
without being infuenced by the interim order passed by this
Court.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 4/4
