Bombay High Court
Rajesh Virendra Tiwari And Ors vs Romell Housing Llp And Ors on 16 September, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:38357
ia4719-2024 in revn108-2023.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4719 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2023
Rajesh Virendra Tiwari & Ors. ... Applicants
In the matter between
Romell Housing LLP & Ors. ... Applicants
V/s.
Sameer Salim Shaikh & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Dinesh Purandare, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Vinodini Srinivasan, Mr. Parag Shah, and Ms. Shraddha
Prajapati for the interveners.
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Drupad
Patil i/by Mr. Dheeraj D. Patil for the applicant in
ATUL Revision.
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
Mr. Chaitanya Pendse with Mr. Atharva S. Jagtap for
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.09.16
respondent No.1.
14:20:04 +0530
Mrs. Rajashree V. Newton, for respondent No.2-State.
Mr. Rohan Sawant i/by Mr. Laxman Jain for respondent
Nos.3 and 4.
Mr. N.C. Pawar, Court Receiver, is present.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 11, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
P.C.:
1. The present interim application is filed by third parties
seeking a direction to add them as respondents in the pending
criminal revision application.
ia4719-2024 in revn108-2023.doc
2. The applicants claim that on 6 November 2013, they
purchased land admeasuring 4,000 sq. meters situated at Village
Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District bearing Survey
Nos. 99/3/A/1, 100/2/A/1 and 100/3/1, corresponding to CTS
Nos. 3071A, 3072A and 3073A. They contend that this land aligns
with part of the property which is the subject-matter of the present
revision. They point out that by order dated 14 February 2018, this
Court had appointed the Court Receiver in respect of the property
in dispute. On 13 November 2019, the Court Receiver was directed
to take possession and accordingly sealed the property which
forms part of the present revision. Thereafter, on 3 December
2019, the City Survey Officer completed the demarcation exercise
and on 5 December 2019, this Court recorded the statement of the
City Survey Officer to that effect. On the same day, permission was
granted to the applicants to raise fencing and to appoint security
guards for protection of their purchased land.
3. The grievance of the applicants is that during the
demarcation exercise, the City Survey Officer wrongly included
their land in the larger property claimed by the present applicants
in revision. They allege that the action of the City Survey Officer
and the Court Receiver resulted in curtailment of their rights to use
and enjoy their own land.
4. The applicants state that they had earlier filed Interim
Application No.1712 of 2019 in the criminal writ petition seeking
intervention. That criminal writ petition was heard and disposed of
by this Court on 23 October 2023. While disposing of the writ
petition, this Court observed that it would be appropriate for the
ia4719-2024 in revn108-2023.doc
parties to establish their rights before the competent forum. It was
also clarified that the Court Receiver would remain in possession
of the disputed property until such adjudication.
5. Dissatisfied, the applicants challenged the order dated 23
October 2023 by filing a Special Leave Petition before the
Supreme Court. By order dated 27 February 2024, the Supreme
Court, after taking into consideration the report of the Court
Receiver, observed that the Receiver's action does not in any
manner affect the ownership rights of the applicants in their
property. The Supreme Court disposed of the SLP granting liberty
to the applicants to file a review petition before this Court or to
take such other recourse as may be available in law. It is pursuant
to this liberty that the present interim application has been filed.
6. However, it needs to be borne in mind that the present
revision application has its origin only in an order passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. As has already been observed in the
main judgment, the limited scope of Section 145 proceedings is to
ascertain who was in possession of the property on the relevant
date. The Magistrate does not and cannot decide ownership or
title. Questions of ownership, boundary demarcation, or validity of
conveyances are matters exclusively falling within the jurisdiction
of the civil court.
7. The applicants, who now seek intervention, were not parties
before the Magistrate in the Section 145 proceedings. They did not
challenge the order of the Magistrate by way of revision. The
ia4719-2024 in revn108-2023.doc
revision application is confined only to the dispute between the
original parties. At this stage, permitting fresh intervention would
enlarge the scope of the revision far beyond its legal limits and
would convert it into a dispute on title, which is impermissible in
law.
8. It is also material to note that the grievance put forth by the
applicants essentially relates to alleged wrongful inclusion of their
land in the demarcation exercise by the City Survey Officer and
subsequent action of the Court Receiver. Such grievance touches
directly upon ownership rights and boundary disputes. These
issues can only be resolved by the civil forum upon evidence and
not in summary proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The law is
well settled that Section 145 proceedings cannot be used as a
substitute for a civil suit.
9. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that
the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the
present revision. Their addition will not aid the adjudication of the
limited issue of possession, which lies at the heart of these
proceedings. Their rights, if any, in respect of ownership or
boundaries remain unaffected and open to be agitated before the
competent civil forum in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the interim application is devoid of merit and
stands rejected.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
