Bombay High Court
Kalawatidevi D/O. Devidayal Singh vs Maharashtra Housing And Area ... on 4 November, 2025
1-RPCST-33865-2025-CRA-1126-2012.docx
rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1126 OF 2012
Kalawatidevi D/o. Devidayal ... Petitioners
Singh
Vs.
Maharashtra Housing and ... Respondents
Area Development Authority and Another
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12607 OF 2025
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 33865 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1126 OF 2012
Sayed Nazia Mohd. Iqbal @ ... Petitioner
Sayed Nazia Shadab Khan
Vs.
Kalawatidevi D/o. Devidayal ... Respondent
Singh
Mr. Ram Upadhyay for the Applicant in CRA/1126/2012.
Mr. Y. E. Mooman a/w. Ms. Manisha B. Gawade for the
Petitioner in RPC(ST) /33865/2025.
Ms. Nandini Y. Deshpande, 1st Asstt. To Court Receiver.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 4th NOVEMBER 2025
ORDER :
RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI
RAMESH PILLAI
2025.11.05
22:42:47 +0200
1-RPCST-33865-2025-CRA-1126-2012.docx
Interim Application No. 12607 of 2025
1. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to
withdraw this application as the applicant has already filed
review petition.
2. Leave granted.
3. Interim Application is disposed of as withdrawn.
Review Petition (St) No. 33865 of 2025
4. This review petition is filed by the party who was added
in the Civil Revision Application. The petitioner claims to be
the heir and legal representative of deceased defendant no.
2. The petitioner seeks to review the judgment and order
dated 30th September 2025 by which the Civil Revision
Application is allowed. By the order under review the suit
filed by the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 is decreed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's intervention application was allowed after this
court had made up its mind about the decision in the Civil
Revision Application. Learned counsel for the petitioner
makes a grievance that he was never heard on merits of the
1-RPCST-33865-2025-CRA-1126-2012.docx
Civil Revision Application.
6. The second ground of review is that MHADA being a
government entity, the suit under Section 6 of the Specific
Relief Act,1963 was not maintainable against MHADA. He
therefore submits that the review petition be allowed and the
order be recalled and the Civil Revision Application be
decided after hearing the petitioner on merits of the Civil
Revision Application.
7. I have perused the papers of Civil Revision Application
and the review petition. I do not find any substance in the first
ground, as the contentions of the petitioner on the merits of
the Civil Revision Application are considered by this court
and also recorded in the order. In paragraphs 22, 23 and 24
the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner on merits of
the order impugned in the Civil Revision Application are dealt
with.
8. So far as the second ground is concerned, it is on the
merits of the suit. The petitioner claims to be the heir and
legal representative of the original deceased defendant no.2;
hence, the intervention application was allowed and the
petitioner was added as party to the Civil Revision
1-RPCST-33865-2025-CRA-1126-2012.docx
Application. The petitioner cannot raise grounds on merits of
the suit, in this review petition.
9. There is neither any error apparent on the face of the
record nor any other ground as contemplated under Order
XLVII of Civil Procedure Code to review the judgment and
order allowing the Civil Revision Application.
10. The Review Petition is therefore dismissed.
Civil Revision Application No. 1126 of 2012
11. By the judgment and order dated 30 th September 2025
the Civil Revision Application is allowed and the suit under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is decreed. The
application was directed to be listed for issuing further
directions for implementing the order through the office of the
learned Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay.
12. The learned First Assistant to the Court Receiver is
present in court. She submits that for implementing the order
the applicant be directed to lodge the order in the office of
the learned Court Receiver by depositing the initial amount
as per the rules, i.e. Rs.50,000/-. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that he shall comply with the request within
1-RPCST-33865-2025-CRA-1126-2012.docx
a week and shall deposit the amount in the office of the
learned Court Receiver.
13. The applicant is permitted to comply with the necessary
requirement including depositing the amount within a week.
After the compliance is made by the applicant, the office of
the learned Court Receiver shall take further steps for
implementing the order dated 30th September 2025.
14. If there is no co-operation from the parties for
implementing the order, the learned Court Receiver is at
liberty to seek appropriate police protection for implementing
the order. In the event the premises are found locked,
learned Court Receiver shall be entitled to break open the
lock and record necessary panchanama and inventory and if
necessary file a report for further directions from this court.
15. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 seeks stay to the
implementation of this order to enable respondent no. 2 to
approach the Apex Court. The order shall remain stayed for a
period of six weeks subject to respondent no. 2 filing an
affidavit-cum-undertaking in this court stating that respondent
no.2 shall not create any third party rights in respect of the
suit property or part with possession in favour of third party.
1-RPCST-33865-2025-CRA-1126-2012.docx
Affidavit shall also state that if favourable order is not passed
by the Apex Court, respondent no. 2 shall co-operate for
implementing the order passed by this court and handover
possession. Necessary affidavit cum undertaking shall be
filed within two weeks.
16. It is clarified that if such an undertaking is not filed, the
stay granted by this order shall stand vacated and the
learned Court Receiver shall implement the directions
passed by this court.
17. In view of the stay granted, it is clarified that the
compliance to be made on behalf of the applicant shall be
made out after expiry of two weeks.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
