Bombay High Court
Ballam Trifla Singh vs Gyan Prakash Shukla And Ors on 9 April, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:16738
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.189 OF 2025
Ballam Trifla Singh ...Applicant
Versus
Gyan Prakash Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Ranjit Thorat, Senior Advocate i/b Ms. Pratibha Shelke, for the
Applicant.
Mr. Vijay Kurle a/w Ms. Bhagyesha Kurane.
Mr. Anand A. Pande, for the Respondent No.1.
Ms. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr. S. K. Dhekale, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, present.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 9th APRIL 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. On 4th April 2025, I have heard submissions of Mr. Ranjit Thorat,
learned Senior Advocate i/b Ms. Pratibha Shelke, learned Advocate on
behalf of the Applicant and Mr. Anand A. Pande, learned Advocate
appearing for the Respondent No.1. The submission of both the learned
Advocate were heard completely on 4th April 2025.
2. The impugned orders in this Civil Revision Application are arising
out of the Obstructionist proceedings. The Applicant – Obstructionist is
the son of the Defendant No.3 i.e. Judgment Debtor. Both the Courts
recorded the concurrent findings that the Applicant has produced
manipulated and fabricated documents. Therefore, after hearing both
the parties this Court expressed that apart from dismissal of Civil
Revision Application with exemplary cost, drastic orders are required to
Vaibhav Page No. 1
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
be passed and therefore Mr. Ranjit Thorat, learned Senior Advocate
took time to take instructions of withdrawal of the Civil Revision
Application. Accordingly, on 4th April 2025, time was granted for taking
instructions regarding withdrawal of the Civil Revision Application and
the matter was adjourned to 8th April 2025. On 8th April 2025, Ms.
Pratibha Shelke, learned Advocate on record appeared for the Applicant
and informed this Court that Applicant has given instructions not to
withdraw the Civil Revision Application and therefore requested the
Court to pass the order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application was
adjourned on 8th April 2025 to 9th April 2025 i.e. today for passing
order.
Conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, Learned Advocate:
3. In the above background, when the matter is called out today,
initially Ms. Bhagyesha Kurane, learned Advocate appeared and
informed that Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has instructions to file
vakalatnama and Applicant has obtained NOC from Ms. Pratibha
Shelke, learned Advocate on record and request was made to adjourn
the matter as Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate will be arguing the
matter. At that time, this Court informed Ms. Bhagyesha Kurane,
learned Advocate that the matter is already completely heard and the
same is kept today for passing order and therefore there is no question
of adjourning the matter. At that stage Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate
Vaibhav Page No. 2
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
appeared and he made the same request that the matter be adjourned
as in the meanwhile he will file vakalatnama and thereafter he will
argue the matter. It is made very clear to Mr. Vija Kurle, learned
Advocate that the submissions of both the parties were heard on 4th
April 2025 and the Civil Revision Application is kept today for passing
order and therefore there is no question of adjouring the matter.
4. The above conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate is totally
unacceptable and prima facie is a misconduct. This Civil Revision
Application was completely heard and submissions were advanced by
Mr. Ranjit Thorat, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Applicant
and this matter is kept earlier for taking instructions regarding
withdrawal of Civil Revision Application and thereafter for passing
order and at the stage of passing order Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned
Advocate appears and is seeking time. Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate
accepted that he has not taken any efforts to get information from Ms.
Pratibha Shelke, learned Advocate about the stage of the proceeding.
However, it is shocking to note that even after this Court informed Mr.
Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate that the Civil Revision Application is kept
for passing order he repeated his request to adjourn the matter. Thus,
the said conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate clearly shows that
he is completely aware that the matter is kept today for passing order
and to ensure that the order is not passed today and the proceedings
Vaibhav Page No. 3
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
are delayed Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has appeared and made
the said request.
5. In view of the above conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate
it is required to be noted that the Advocates are the Officers of the
Court and their first duty is to the Court. Advocates are not the agents
of their client. In this behalf it is significant to note the Rules governing
Advocates framed by the Bar Council of India concerning Standards of
Professional conduct and Etiquette framed under Section 49(1) of the
Advocate Act, 1961. The relevant rules are as under :-
“Preamble
An advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a
manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court/a
privileged member of the community and a gentleman,
bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a
person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of
the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper
for an advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing obligation, an Advocate shall fearlessly uphold the
interests of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules
hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit. The rules
hcreinafter mentioned contain canons of conduct and
etiquette adopted as general guides, yet the specific mention
thereof shall not be construed as a denial of the existence of
others equally imperative though not specifically mentioned.
Section I-Duty to the Court
1. An Advocate shall, during the presentation of his case
and while otherwise acting before a Court, conduct himself
with dignity and self-respect. He shall not be servile and
whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint
against a judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to
submit his grievance to proper authorities.
Vaibhav Page No. 4
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
2. An Advocate shall maintain towards the Court a
respectful attitude, bearing in mind that the dignity of the
judicial office is essential for the survival of a free
community.
3. An Advocate shall not influence the decision of a Court
by any illegal or improper means. Private communication
with a judge relating to a pending case are forbidden.
4. An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and
prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices
or from doing anything in relation to the Court, opposing
counsel or parties which the Advocate himself ought not to
do. An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who
persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider
himself a merè:mouthpiece of the client and shall exercise
his own judgement in the use of restrained language in
correspondence avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and
using intemperate language during arguments in Courts.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, an Advocate shall act at all times in a manner befitting his status
as an Officer of the Court. An advocate shall conduct himself with
dignity and self respect. An Advocate shall not influence the decision of
a Court by any illegal or improper means. An Advocate shall use his best
efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or
unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court. An
advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such
improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of
the client.
6. If the above referred conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, lerned Advocate
is examined, on the touchstone of the above Rules governing Advocates
Vaibhav Page No. 5
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
framed by the Bar Council of India concerning Standards of Professional
conduct and Etiquette, then it is clear that Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned
Advocate has acted in complete breach of the said rules. Although the
matter is completely heard on 4 th April 2025 and kept for passing order
he was seeking time for file vakalatnama and arguing the matter. Thus,
Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has acted as agent/mouthpiece of the
Applicant and not as the Officer of the Court.
7. The merits of the Applicant’s case in the Civil Revision
Application will be discussed in detail in later part of this Judgment,
however, for appreciating the conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned
Advocate, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects :-
i. The subject Suit is filed in the year 1996 by the
Plaintiff – Landlord alleging that the Defendant No.1 –
Original tenant has inter alia sublet the suit premises to the
Defendant No.3. The suit premises is of 990 sq. ft area
where hotel is conducted by the Applicant.
ii. The said Suit is decreed in the year 2016 i.e. after
about 20 years on the ground of subletting inter alia
directing that Defendant No.3 shall hand over vacant and
peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.
iii. Although the Defendant No.3 filed Appeal challenging
the eviction decree stay was not sought or conditions of
Vaibhav Page No. 6
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).docstay were not complied and therefore stay was vacated. In
any case the stay was not operating in the said Appeal filed
by the Defendant No.3.
iv. The present Applicant is the son of the Defendant
No.3 – Judgment Debtor and he obstructed the execution of
the decree by contending that he is the owner of the suit
premises on the basis of the sale deed dated 26 th November,
1990.
v. In said Obstructionist proceeding and Appeal
challenging the same both the Courts have concurrently
recorded findings that when the said alleged sale deed
dated 26th November 1990 was executed, the Applicant was
minor, there is no evidence of payment of consideration,
the alleged sale deed is unregistered and unstamped
document and therefore the Applicant has failed to
establish independent right, title and interest. It is
significant to note that both the learned Courts have
concurrently held that the documents produced by the
Applicant are manipulated and fabricated.
vi. This Civil Revision Application was argued by Mr.
Ranjit Thorat, learned Senior Advocate i/b Ms. Pratibha
Shelke, learned Advocate on 4 th April 2025 and when this
Vaibhav Page No. 7
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).docCourt pointed out the concurrent findings recorded by both
the Courts to the effect that the Applicant has produced
manipulated and fabricated documents, Mr. Thorat, learned
Senior Advocate took time to take instructions from the
Applicant about withdrawal of the Civil Revision
Application and therefore the Civil Revision Application
was adjourned to 8th April 2025.
vii. On 8th April 2025, Ms. Pratibha Shelke, learned
Advocate informed this Court that the Applicant is not
ready to withdraw the Civil Revision Application and
therefore requested the Court to pass the order and
therefore the Civil Revision Application is adjourned to 9 th
April 2025 i.e. today for passing order.
viii. Today when the matter is called out and when I
started dictation of the order, earlier Ms. Bhagyesha
Kurane, learned Advocate appeared and thereafter Mr.
Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate appeared and submitted that
Ms.Pratibha Shelke, learned Advocate has given “No-
Objection” and Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has
instructions to appear in the matter and argue the matter.
ix. This is a case where the Applicant i.e. Obstructionst is
the son of the Judgment Debtor i.e. Defendant No.3. Both
Vaibhav Page No. 8
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).docthe Courts have recorded concurrent finding that the
documents on the basis of which Applicant – Obstructionist
was claiming right of ownership are manipulated and
fraudulent documents. The factual position on record
shows that the Suit filed in the year 1996, decreed in the
year 2016 i.e. after 20 years and thereafter execution of
said decree is delayed for last 9 years as the Obstructionist
proceedings are going on. Thus, on the basis of fraudulent
documents, successfully it is ensured that the decree is not
executed.
x. As noted earlier when after Civil Revision Application
is argued completely and when the same is kept for passing
order today, Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate appeared on
the basis of NOC given by Ms. Pratibha Shelke, learned
Advocate.
xi. Ms. Pratibha Shelke, learned Advocate states that in
the morning the Applicant approached her and took her
NOC and informed her that he will be engaging another
Advocate.
8. As noted herein above the Rules framed by the Bar Council of
Maharashtra and Goa concerning the Standards of Professional Conduct
and Etiquette inter alia provides as follows :-
Vaibhav Page No. 9
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
i. An Advocate shall, at all times, conduct himself in a
manner benefiting his status as an officer of the Court.
ii. An Advocate shall, during the presentation of his
case and while otherwise acting before a Court, conduct
himself with dignity and self respect.
iii. An Advocate shall not influence the decision of a
Court by any illegal or improper means.
iv. An Advocate shall use his best effort to restrain and
prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair
practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court.
v. An Advocate shall not consider himself a mere
mouthpiece of the client and shall exercise his own
judgment.
9. The conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate clearly shows
that instead of restraining and preventing the Applicant from resorting
to sharp and unfair practices, Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has
acted as agent of the Applicant. Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate
instead of acting as an Officer of the Court actively participated with the
Applicant in resorting to sharp and unfair practice by appearing in the
matter which has been completely heard and kept for passing order.
Although it is informed to Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate that the
matter is kept for passing order still to delay passing of order he sought
Vaibhav Page No. 10
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
adjournment for filing vakalatnama and for arguing the matter. The said
conduct clearly shows that Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has
resorted to sharp and unfair practice with complete knowledge that the
matter is completely heard and kept for passing order. Prima facie I am
satisfied that Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has committed
misconduct. Thus, in the facts and circumstances it is necessary to direct
that the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct enquiry in the
conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate. It is specifically made
clear that the observations made in this order regarding the conduct of
Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate are prima facie and all contentions
are expressly kept open to be decided in the said enquiry to be
conducted by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, in accordance
with law.
10. It is also required to be noted that when this order is being
dictated in the open Court, Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate wanted to
leave the Court, however, this Court directed Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned
Advocate not to leave the Court as this Court wanted to dictate the
entire order in his presence in view of the peculiar facts of the case and
as set out hereinabove this Court will be directing in the operative part
of the order to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct
enquiry in his conduct.
Decision on Civil Revision Application No.189 of 2025:-
Vaibhav Page No. 11
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
11. By the present Civil Revision Application the challenge is to the
legality and the validity of the Judgment and Decree dated 19 th March
2025, passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court,
Mumbai in Appeal No.53 of 2024 in Obstructionist Notice No.1 of 2024
in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.83/228 of 1996 as well as to the Judgment and
Decree dated 5th July 2024, passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes
Court, Mumbai in the Obstructionist Notice No.1 of 2024 (Old Marji
Application No.33 of 2017) in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.83/228 of 1996.
12. Mr. Ranjit Thorat, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the
Applicant is the owner of the suit premises as he has purchased the suit
premises by sale deed dated 26th November 1990. He submitted that the
Applicant has produced several documents to substantiate said
contention that the Applicant is the owner of the suit premises. Mr.
Ranjit Thorat, learned Senior Advocate therefore submitted that as the
Applicant is having independent right, title and interest both the
impugned Judgments and Decrees be quashed and set aside and the suit
be dismissed.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Anand A. Pande, learned Advocate
appearing for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the said sale deed
dated 26th November 1990, is unstamped and unregistered and
therefore it has no consequences in law. He further submitted that the
vendor who allegedly executed the said sale deed has no right, title and
Vaibhav Page No. 12
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
interest. He submitted that the photocopy of the said sale deed which is
produced alongwith Obstructionist proceedings mentions C.T.S. No.200
whereas in the original of said alleged sale deed C.T.S. No. mentioned is
210. Mr. Anand A. Pande, learned Advocate also submitted that as per
the said sale deed vendor is Mr. Momin Rajubhai Sawaj Ali whereas an
Affidavit dated 10th August 1996, executed by Mr. Shaikh Faqir
Mohammed Abdul Latif produced by the Applicant before the
authorities of the Bombay Muncipal Corporation for the purpose of
issuance of Shop and Establishment Licence mentions that the Applicant
and his two brothers purchased the suit premises by sale deed dated 2 nd
September 1995 from said Mr. Shaikh Faqir Mohammed Abdul Latif.
Thus, he submits that the documents produced by the Applicants are
manipulated and fraudulent as held by both the Courts and therefore,
the Civil Revision Application be dismissed with exemplary cost.
14. It is necessary to set out certain factual aspects :-
i. The Plaintiff i.e. Respondent No.1 filed R.A.E.& R.
Suit No.82/228 of 1996 on 19th March 1996. The Suit is
filed against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. It is the contention in
the Plaint filed by the Respondent No.1 – Plaintiff that the
Original tenant is Defendant No.1 and he has sublet the
same to the Defendant No.2 and thereafter to Defendant
No.3.
Vaibhav Page No. 13
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
ii. The learned Trial Court decreed the Suit by
Judgment and Decree dated 15 th December 2016, by
passing the eviction decree. Thus, the Suit which has been
filed in the year 1996 has been decreed by the learned
Trial Court after a period of about 20 years and 8 months.
The learned Trial Court decreed the Suit on the ground of
default and subletting. The learned Trial Court has held
that Defendant No.1 has sublet the suit premises to
Defendant No.2 without consent and permission of the
Plaintiff and further proved that Defendant No.1 after
obtaining possession from the Defendant No.2 illegally
assigned tenancy in respect of the suit premises to the
Defendant No.3.
iii. It is significant to note that, the Defendant No.3 –
Trifla Singh Jugal Singh, filed Appeal No.41 of 2017 and
Stay Application has also been filed in the said Appeal.
However, either the said Stay Application has not been
pressed by the Defendant No.3 i.e. present Respondent
No.4 or the conditions imposed of deposit of compensation
has not been complied with and therefore stay stands
vacated. In any case it is admitted position that stay is not
operating in the said Appeal.
Vaibhav Page No. 14
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
iv. It is significant to note that thereafter, Marji
Application No.33 of 2017 has been filed by the present
Applicant / Obstructionist – Mr. Ballam Trifla Singh who is
the son of Original Defendant No.3 i.e. Judgment Debtor.
The said Marji Application No.33 of 2017 has been
converted as Obstructionist Notice No.1 of 2024.
v. It is significant to note the following contentions
raised in said Marji Application No.33 of 2017 which are
very relevant.
“1. l say that I am in exclusive use, occupation and
possession of a commercial premises being Census
No.KWX-C-1/1 situated at Vindavan Chawl, Near
Vishal Nagar, Link Road, Jogeshwari (West),
Murbai – 400102 as the owner thereof since last so
many years.
2. I say that since the said premises is a commercial
premises I am doing the business there from in the
name and style of Linkway Hotel since last so many
years. I say that for doing the said business I have
obtained licence from the B.M.C. being Shop and
Establishment Licence and Health Licence. Hereto
annexed and marked Exhibit-A (colly.)is the Xerox
copy of the Shop and Establishment Licence issued
in my name by the Corporation at the address of
said premises.
3. I say that since I am doing the business from the
said premises in the Name and Style of M/s.
Linkway Hotel and therefore, I have also obtained
the Licence from other concerned authorities such
as Police Licence issued in my name at the address
of said room. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-
B is the copy of Police Licence issued in my name at
the address of said premises in the name of my saidVaibhav Page No. 15
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).docbusiness.
4. I say that I have purchased the above said
structure from its earlier owner Mr.
MominRajuSawaj Ali in the year 1990 by sale deed
dated 26th day of November, 1990 for a total sum of
Rs.95,000/-. I shall crave leave to, referred to and
rely upon the said agreement as and when
produced. The said structure is admeasuring about
990 sq.ft. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-C is
the copy of said agreement.”
(Emphasis added)
vi. In said Obstructionist proceedings following issues
were framed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court,
Mumbai by Order dated 9th January 2024 :-
“1) Whether obstructionist prove that he is an
owner of the suit premises?
2) Whether obstructionist prove that he is in
exclusive use, occupation and possession of the
suit premises since the year 1990?
3) Whether obstructionist prove that decree is not
binding upon him?
4) What order?”
vii. In the Affidavit of Examination-in-Chief the
Applicant / Obstructionist has inter alia stated as follows :-
“1. I say that I am in exclusive use, occupation and
possession of a commercial premises being Census
No.KWX-C-19/1/1 situated at Vindavan Chawl,
Near Vishal Nagar, Link Road, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai 400102 (“said premises”) as the owner
thereof since last several years.
Vaibhav Page No. 16
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
2. I say that since said premises is a commercial
premises. I am doing business in name and style of
‘Linkway Hotel’ from said premises since last
several years.
3. I say that for the purpose of running my
business, I have obtained Shop and Establishment
License from Brihan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika
(B.M.C.). I am producing herewith at Serial No. 1
colly alongwith a List of documents two original
Shops & Establishment License dated 13.07.2000
issued by the B.M.C. in my name. The said License
is issued by the B.M.C. in routine course of business
and the same is a public document. Contents of the
said two Licenses are true and correct. The same be
marked as an exhibit.
4. I further say that, I have also obtained the
Licence from Police authorities for the purposes of
my business being run in the name and style of
‘Linkway Hotel’. 1 am producing herewith at Serial
No. 2 alongwith a List of documents original Police
License dated 13.03.2002 issued in my favour and
bears the address of the said premises. The
aforesaid police license has been issued to me by
the authority in routine course of business and the
same is a public document. Contents thereof are
true and correct. The same be marked as an
exhibit.
5. I say that I have purchased the said premises
from its previous owner Mr. Momin Raju Sawaj Ali
in the year 1990. By a Sale Deed dated 26.11.1990
entered into between the previous owner –
MominRajuSawaj Ali and myself, the said premises
were sold to me for a total consideration of Rs.
95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand Only). The
said premises admeasures about 990 sq.ft. I am
producing herewith at Serial No. 3 alongwith a List
of documents Original Sale Deed dated 26.11.1990
entered into between the previous owner Momin
Rajubhai Sawaj Ali and myself. It bears my
signature. I identify my signature as well as
signature of Momin Rajubhai Sawaj Ali on the SaleVaibhav Page No. 17
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).docDeed dated 26.11.990. The said Momin Rajubhai
Sawaj has signed in my presence. Contents of the
Sale Deed dated 26.11.1990 are true and correct.
The same be marked as an exhibit.”
(Emphasis added)
viii. The relevant cross-examination of the
Applicant/Obstructionist is as follows :-
“a) I am 10th fail. I could understand English
language very little. I have started Linkway Hotel
in the year 1998. The structure of hotel is
pakka/permanent structure. The area of the suit
premises is 990 sq. ft. The suit premises are in my
possession since the year 1990. Between the years
1990-98, I had given the suit premises on rent. I do
not remember to whom the premises were let out.
There was no rent agreement executed. Exh.37
(Shop and Establishment) is now shown to me.
This Shop Act Licence is obtained in the year 2000.
I had applied for the licence in the year 1998 when
I started my hotel business. I have no copy of that
application. In the Shop Act Licence, there is no
structure number mentioned
b) My date of birth is 08.10.1973. I can show
document to verify my birth date. I cannot produce
my School Leaving Certificate or Birth Certificate.
When I purchased the suit premises, my age was
around 17 and ½ years. My birth place is not
Mumbai. I have taken education in my native
place. My uncle had purchased the suit premises in
the year 1990 for Rs.95,000/-. The name of my
uncle is Nanu Jugalkishor Singh. He was a driver
in B.E.S.T. Exh.39 is now shown to me. It is not
mentioned therein that my uncle purchased the
premises for me. There is no document to show
that my uncle purchased the suit premises for me.
The suit premises situated at C.T.S. No.210. On
page No.2 of agreement (Exh.39) C.T.S. No.210 is
written. In the xerox copy of agreement annexed
with Exh.1, C.T.S. No.200 is written. I cannot
assign any reason why in the xerox copy different
Vaibhav Page No. 18
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
C.T.S. number is mentioned. It is not true to say
that I have prepared forged agreement mentioning
C.T.S. No.210 in it. It is not true to say that when I
came to know my mistake, I changed the C.T.S.
number in original agreement in order to create
forged document. The suit premises has been
purchased from Momin Rajuhai Sawaj Ali. He was
owner of the suit premises. I had not seen any
document of title of the vendor before purchasing
the suit premises. It is not true to say that Momin
Sawaj Ali was neither owner, tenant nor occupant
of the suit premises and that is why no title
document was verified before purchasing it.
c) I am now shown the xerox copy of information
supplied for filing Appeal against the order passed
below Exh.18 in MARJI Application No.33/2017
dated 01.03.2022. In this matter, in Annexure-V(A)
my birth date is mentioned as 08.10.1977 instead
of 08.10.1973 by mistake. I have two brothers i.e.
Jayprakash and Omprakash. It is not true to say
that the date of birth written in this information is
correct and I have told my wrong birth date. It is
not true to say that I have obtained PAN Card by
mentioning wrong birth date. When I was carrying
on Link View Hotel, my brothers were not working
with me. I had obtained Shops and Establishment
Licence in 1998. AWIV000887 is the licence
number. Now copy of my application made for
obtaining Shop Act Licence is shown to me. The
licence number written, on this application is the
same. The address mentioned on it is the address
of my hotel. It is not true to say that these are the
documents which were submitted while obtaining
Shop Act Licence. It is not true to say that while
submitting the application, I had mentioned that
the suit premises were obtained from Shaikh Fakir
Mohd. Abdul Latif. It is not true to say that I had
also mentioned that Shaikh Fakir had obtained that
premises from one Amina Begam Abdul Majid. It is
not true to say that this Amina Begam is wife of
original defendant No.1. It is not true to say that I
wanted to show that the property was obtained
from wife of defendant No.1. It is not true to say
that I have not acquired the suit premises in 1999.
Vaibhav Page No. 19
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
It is not true to say that the person named Momin
Rajubhai Sawaj was never in possession of the suit
premises. It is not true to say that my father had
purchased the suit premises from original
defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is not true to say that for
grabbing possession of the suit premises, this false
application is made. It is not true to say that since
the beginning, I was aware about pendency of suit
of 1996. I am not aware that in Appeal, the
Hon’ble Appellate Court had ordered my father to
pay the money and as my father was not having
money to comply the order, the present application
is filed. It is not true to say that I am deposing false
and I have no right in the suit premises.”
(Emphasis added)
ix. It is significant to note that the entire case of the
Applicant / Obstructionist is on the basis of the sale deed
dated 26th November 1990. The said sale deed was
executed by Mr. Momin Rajubhai Sawaj Ali as vendor. As
noted earlier copy of said sale deed produced by the
Applicant alongwith the Marji Application mentions the
premises purchased as bearing C.T.S. No.200 whereas
original of the same produced by the Applicant at Exhibit-
39 mentions the same as C.T.S. No.210.
x. In view of the production and reliance by the
Applicant on the sale deed dated 26th November 1990, it is
significant to note the Affidavit dated 10 th August 1996,
executed by “Shaikh Faqir Mohammed Abdul Latif”
Vaibhav Page No. 20
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
produced by the Applicant before the authorities of shop
and establishment department of M.C.G.M for getting the
licence. The relevant paragraphs of said Affidavit dated
10th August 1996 are as follows :-
“A F F I D A V I T:
I, MR. SHAIKH FAQIR MOHAMMED
ABDUL LATIF, an Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
resident of 227/181 Motilal Nagar No.1,
Goregaon (West), Mumbai 400 104 do hereby
state and declare on solemn affirmation as
under:
I state and declare that I was the owner
and as such was absolutely seized and
possessed of a business premises, i.e. a shop
premises, admeasuring about 10Feet x 60Feet,
situated on. the Plot of land, bearing survey
No.25 part, Hissa No.20 Part, C.T.S. No. 200
Part, of village Oshivara, Taluka Andheri, situate
near Vishal Nagar, Vrindavan Chawl, Linking-
Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai 400 102
(hereinafter refer to as “the said shop
premises”). I state that I have purchased the
said document from one Smt. AMINABEGAM
ABDUL MAJID by virtue of an Affidavit and
other relevant documents to that effect dated 4 th
April, 1995. I state that the said Smt.
AMINABEGAM ABDUL MAJID was the original
owner of the said shop premises, holding the
relevant documents in her name. I state that on
the said date of execution of the said
documents, I took the vacant and absolute
possession of the said shop premises.
I state that in turn, I by virtue of an Sale
deed dated 2nd day of September, 1995, I had
sold, transferred, assigned and relinquished all
my right, title, claim and interest, over the said
shop premises to (1) SHRI BALLAM SINGHVaibhav Page No. 21
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).docTRIPLA SINGH, (2) JAIPRAKASH SINGH
TRIFLA SINGH aged 15 years, (3) OMPRAKASH
SINGH TRIFLA SINGH, aged 10 years, No.2 and
3 minors, through their legal guardian and
father SHRI TRIFLA SINGH JUGAL SINGH
(hereinafter referred to as “the Transferees”)
and now they are in the absolute and exclusive
possession of the said shop premises.”
xi. Thus, the position on record shows that the
Applicant has relied on unregistered and unstamped sale
deed dated 26th November 1990, allegedly executed by
Momin Rajubhai Sawaj Ali executed in his favour. As
already noted there is variation between the photocopy of
the said sale deed produced earlier in the year 2017 and
original sale deed produced in the evidence in the year
2024. However, it is significant to note that to the M.C.G.M
authorities the Applicant had submitted above referred
Affidavit dated 10th August 1996 executed by Shaikh Faqir
Mohammed Abdul Latif inter alia stating that by virtue of
the sale deed dated 2nd day of September, 1995, he had
sold, transferred, assigned and relinquished all his right,
title, claim and interest, over the said shop premises to (1)
SHRI BALLAM SINGH TRIPLA SINGH, (2) JAIPRAKASH
SINGH TRIFLA SINGH aged 15 years, (3) OMPRAKASH
SINGH TRIFLA SINGH, aged 10 years, No.2 and 3 minors,
through their legal guardian and father SHRI TRIFLA
Vaibhav Page No. 22
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
SINGH JUGAL SINGH. It is significant to note that the
Applicant has not produced any document to show that
either said Momin Rajubhai Sawaj Ali or said Shaikh Faqir
Mohammed Abdul Latif are the owners of the suit premises.
Thus, it is clear that the entire case of the Applicant is false
and the Applicant has relied on manipulated and fabricated
documents.
xii. The said Obstructionist Notice No.1 of 2024 (Old
Marji Application No.2017) filed by the Obstructionist i.e.
present Applicant – Ballam Trifla Singh, son of Defendant
No.3 was dismissed by a learned Judge, Small Causes
Court, Mumbai by Order dated 5th July 2024, passed in
Obstructionist Notice No.1 of 2024 (Old Marji Application
No.33 of 2017) in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.83/228 of 1996.
Thus, it is clear that the said Obstructionist Notice No.1 of
2024 (filed in the year 2017) has been dismissed after a
period of 7 years and 2 months.
xiii. Said Order dated 5th July 2024 is confirmed by the
learned Appellate Court by Order dated 19th March 2025.
15. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in the
impugned Order dated 5th July 2024, observed that the claim is made by
the Applicant i.e. Obstructionist on the basis of sale deed dated 26 th
Vaibhav Page No. 23
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
November 1990. The said sale deed is not legal and valid as the same is
an unregistered and unstamped document and thus no legal right
passes in favour of the Obstructionist. The Applicant / Obstructionist in
his cross-examination has admitted that he was a minor at the time
when the sale deed was executed and the consideration money was
paid by his uncle. The learned Judge has observed that in the said sale
deed such averment is not to be found and in fact the Applicant i.e.
Ballam Trifla Singh is shown and referred to as an adult in the said sale
deed when actually he was minor at that time. Apart from the said
aspects photocopy of the sale deed dated 26th November 1990,
produced alongwith said Marji Application mentions the suit premises
as C.T.S. No.200, whereas original sale deed produced in the evidence
mentions the said C.T.S. No. as 210. In the sale deed the name of the
vendor is shown as Momin Rajubhai Sawaj Ali whereas Affidavit of Mr.
Shaikh Faqir Mohammed Abdul Latif produced before the M.C.G.M.
states that the Applicant has purchased the suit premises from said
Shaikh Faqir Mohammed Abdul Latif. Thus, it is clear that document
produced by the Applicant are manipulated and fraudulent.
16. The learned Judge, of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai has
observed in Paragraph No.16, 17 and 18 as under :-
“16] Herein this case, this argument rendered by the
learned counsel has no bearing as the plaintiff has also
examined the witness of B.M.C who had brought the
original documents alongwith him so as to compare itVaibhav Page No. 24
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).docwith the photocopies and to confirm its authenticity. The
obstructionist, on the other hard mischievously denied
the authenticity of his own documents when confronted
to him during his cross-examination. Even the objection
raised by the obstructionist at the time of exhibiting that
document was not sustainable as the concerned
authority has produced that document which was
received by it in regular course of its business. Notably,
the obstructionist has been exposed to the fraudulent act
committed by him in tendering ! altogether different
documents that were not submitted by him to the B.M.C.
while obtaining the Shop Act licence in respect of the
premises that are definitely not related to the suit
premises.
17] The document exhibit 71 only is suffice enough to
reveal the fraud submitted by the obstructionist in
moving the present notice. The copy of application
submitted by him to B.M.C. for running his hotel and
annexures submitted with it clearly show that, no C.T.S.
number is mentioned all these documents. The copy of
Sale Deed dated 26.11.1990 was not attached with this
application but in fact, an agreement executed between
himself and Shaikh Fakir Mohd. Abdul Latif was shown
to him the source of his title to the property, i.e. shop
premises admeasuring 10 x 60 feet, situated at C.T.S.
No.200 (Part), bearing Survey No.25 (Part), Hissa No.20
(Part) of Village Oshiwara, near Vishal Nagar, Vrindavan
Chawl, Linking Road, Jogeshwari (West). This property
was transferred only by way of an affidavit dated
10.08.1996 and General Power of Attorney executed on
the same date. There is mention of Sale Deed dated
02.09.1995 executed in favour of Ballam Singh and his
minor brothers Jayprakash Singh and Omprakash Singh.
That Sale Deed was mentioned to be executed under the
guardianship of their father Trifla Singh. Though it is
believed that this Sale Deed of 1995 was executed when
the obstructionist was an adult, no copy of that-Sale
Deed was annexed with the application to verify that it
was a registered and a legal document.
18] The obstructionist further tried to show that the
C.T.S. number of the suit premises is 210 and 200.
Admittedly, the land C.T.S. No.210 falls under the ‘slum’
Vaibhav Page No. 25
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
area. But in the document which is relied upon by him
which are annexed with this obstructionist notice itself
show that the unregistered Sale Deed was executed in
respect of the property situated at C.T.S. No.200. Thus, it
is crystal clear that the obstructionist has produced false
and fabricated documents in collusion with his father in
order to frustrate the claim of the plaintiff and to avoid
execution of possession warrant in respect of the suit
premises. The premises in which he is running his hotel
are altogether different than that of the suit premises
against which the decree in the eviction suit is passed. In
totality of the circumstances, I am inclined to record my
“negative” findings as to Issue Nos.1 to 3 and in answer
to Issue No.4, proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
1. Obstructionist Notice No.1/2024 is made
absolute.
2. The decree passed in R.A.E. & R. Suit
No.83/288/1996 dated 15.12.2016 is binding
upon obstructionist.
3. The plaintiff is entitled to execute the
possession warrant issued in Execution
Application No.26/2017 against the defendants
and the obstructionist for recovering vacant and
peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. Shed
No.1 of Gyanprakash Chawl, situated at Shukla
Compound, near Vrindavan Chawl, New Link
Road, Kajupada, Behrambaug, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102, more precisely
described in the aforesaid judgment.
4. Defendants as well as obstructionist are
directed to handover vacant and peaceful
possession of the suit premises as
aforementioned within two months of this order.
5. Decree be drawn up accordingly.”
(Emphasis added)
Vaibhav Page No. 26
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
Thus, perusal of these paragraphs clearly show that the learned Judge
of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai on the basis of evidence on record
has recorded the finding that the Applicant has produced false and
fabricated documents.
17. The Order dated 5th July 2024, passed by the learned Judge,
Small Causes Court, Mumbai is challenged by filing E-Appeal No.53 of
2024. The said Appeal is dismissed. The learned Appellate Court has
observed in Paragraph Nos.23 to 25 which reads as under :-
“23. We have re-appreciated the evidence of the
obstructionist and the plaintiff in the appeal. It revealed
that, the affidavit of evidence of the obstructionist is
replica of the application/obstructionist notice. However,
his cross-examination speaks loud how he is suppressing
the material facts from the Court. In the cross-examination,
he stated that he started Hotel Linkway in the year 1998.
Before that the suit premises had been given on rent, but
he does not remember the name of person to whom the
suit premises was let out. There was no rent agreement
executed between him and the so called tenant. He stated
that he obtained the license for hotel in the year 1998.
According to his evidence, he purchased the suit premises
on 26.11.1990 for consideration of Rs. 95,000/- (Ninety
Five Thousand only). In the cross-examination he stated
that his date of birth is 08.10.1973. He admitted that when
he purchased the suit premises his age was 17 1/2 years. We
calculated the same and it comes to 17 years, 8 months
and 16 days. Moreover, he has filed photocopy of the sale
deed, which is unregistered. It revealed in the cross-
examination that he placed the original sale deed on
record at Exh. 39. In the original copy of sale deed C.T.S.
Number is mentioned as C.T.S. No. 210, whereas the
photocopy of the said sale deed mentioned C.T.S. No. 200,
which is prima facie overwriting. The obstructionist has
not given any reason as to why there is a difference in the
original and photocopy of sale deed in respect of C.T.S.
Number. Thereafter, the obstructionist stated in hisVaibhav Page No. 27
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).docevidence that the suit property is purchased by his uncle in
his name. But, there is no contemporary evidence placed
on record. Moreover, there is not clarification of difference
in the description of the property. We are of considered
opinion that, the evidence of obstructionist is not
trustworthy and not probable evidence. The sale deed,
which the obstructionist is relying upon has no legal
sanctity in view Section 17 read with Section 49 of the
Registration Act. Therefore, the obstructionist has no
independent right to use, occupy and hold the possession
of suit premises.
24. The documents relied by the obstructionist is not
sufficient to justify that he was in possession of the suit
premises prior to filing of the suit. The learned trial court
has considered all documents. Thus documents does not
give any right to the obstructionist to hold the suit
premises for use and occupation.
25. The plaintiff has tendered his evidence during trial of
obstructionist notice and also examined another witness
Mr. Avinash Vichare (Exh. 69) who is Senior Inspector of
BMC. He has produced on record various documents below
list Exh. 59. The documents were placed on record how the
obstructionist has manipulated and prepared the
documents contrary to the original record. We have
perused the same and noticed that prima facie
obstructionist has nothing to do with the suit premises. It
seems that after filing of the suit some licenses were
obtained by the obstructionist in his name, but it does not
give any right, title to him. Therefore, on carefully re-
appreciation of the evidence and documents placed on
record, we are of view that the obstructionist has no
independent right to use and possess the suit premises and
he was not in possession prior to filing of suit. Therefore,
we answer point No. 1 in the negative.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, the learned Appellate Court recorded a finding that the
Obstructionist has no independent right to use and possess the suit
premises. It has been observed by the learned Appellate Court that the
Vaibhav Page No. 28
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
documents placed on record by the Obstructionist show that the said
documents are manipulated and the documents are prepared contrary
to the original record.
18. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts, clearly
show that the Applicant has produced fabricated documents.
19. As already noted herein above after hearing the matter
completely and when it was pointed out to Mr. Ranjit Thorat, learned
Senior Advocate that the documents produced by the Applicant are
forged and fabricated, learned Senior Advocate took time to consider
withdrawal of the Civil Revision Application. Accordingly, the time was
granted and Civil Revision Application was kept on 8 th April 2025. On
8th April 2025, Ms. Pratibha Shelke, learned Advocate on record
requested the Court to pass the Order as Applicant is not ready to
withdraw the Civil Revision Application. As noted earlier, at this stage
when the Court was to start dictation of the Order Ms. Bhagyesha
Kurane, holding for Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate appeared and
requested the matter be adjourned on the ground that Mr. Vijay Kurle,
learned Advocate has instructions to file vakalatnama and argue the
matter. Thereafter, Mr. Vijay Kurle, also appeared and made the same
request. Thus, the conduct of the Applicant shows that not only
fraudulent and manipulated documents were produced but even an
attempt is made to delay the matter when the same is kept for passing
Vaibhav Page No. 29
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
order.
20. The Supreme Court in the decision of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath 1, has held that the Courts of law are meant for imparting
justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come
with clean hands. It is observed that more often than not, process of the
Court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-
dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the
Court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely.
The Supreme Court further observed that we have no hesitation to say
that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to
approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of
the litigation.
21. The Supreme Court in the recent Judgement in the case of
Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey 2 has held that Doctrine of
“Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with
full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum. The party
approaching Court must come with clean hands and disclose all correct
and material facts. If it is brought to the notice of the Court that a party
is guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come
with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the Courts
as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on
1 (1994) 1SCC 1
2 (2005) SCC OnLine 556
Vaibhav Page No. 30
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter. The
said observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the
present case.
22. As observed hereinabove a decree has been passed in a Suit filed
in the year 1996 on 15th December 2016 i.e. after a period of 20 years
and 8 months. Thereafter the Obstructionist proceedings are filed in or
about April 2017 (earlier as Marji Application No.33 of 2017) which has
been renumbered as Obstructionist Notice No.1 of 2024. The
Obstructionist proceeding initiated in April 2017 has been decided by
the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai on 5 th July 2024
i.e. after a period of 7 years and 2 months and the learned Appellate
Court dismissed the Appeal by Judgment and Decree dated 19 th March
2025. Thus, after a period of 8 years, the learned Appellate Court has
finally dismissed the Obstructionst proceedings.
23. The Supreme Court in the decision of Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr. v.
Shibu Mathew & Anr. 3 has observed in paragraph No.2 as follows:-
“2. More than a century and a half back, the Privy Council
(speaking through the Right Hon. Sir James Colville) in
The General Manager of The Raj Durbhunga, Under the
Court of Wards v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh1
lamented that the difficulties of litigants in India indeed
begin when they have obtained a decree. A reference to
the above observation is also found in the decision of the
Oudh Judicial Commissioner’s Court in Kuer Jang
Bahadur v. Bank of Upper India Ltd. Lucknow2. It was
ruled there that the Courts had to be careful to ensure
that the process of the Court and the laws of procedure
3 (2023) SCC OnLine 643Vaibhav Page No. 31
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).docwere not abused by judgment-debtors in such a way as to
make the courts of law instrumental in defrauding
creditors, who had obtained decrees in accordance with
their rights.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, the Privy Council a century and half back, lamented that the
difficulties of the litigants in India indeed begin when they have
obtained a decree. It is observed by the Oudh Judicial Commissioner’s
Court, that the Court had to be careful to ensure that the process of the
Court and the laws of procedure were not abused by judgment-debtors
in such a way as to make the courts of law instrumental in defrauding
creditors, who had obtained decrees in accordance with their rights.
24. The above observations are squarely applicable to the present
case. This is a case where the Suit has been filed in the year 1996
against the Defendant No.3 who is the father of the present Applicant –
Obstructionist. The Suit has been decreed after a period of about 20
years and thereafter, the Obstructionist proceedings have been filed in
the year 2017 by the Applicant who is the son of the Defendant No.3.
Both the Courts have concurrently inter alia held that the documents
produced to establish right of the Obstructionist are fraudulent
documents. The said documents are discussed in earlier part of this
judgment and the same are found to be fraudulent even by this Court.
Accordingly, even if the Civil Revision Application is dismissed with
exemplary cost the same will not be sufficient to render justice. In the
Vaibhav Page No. 32
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
facts and circumstances of this case, it is necessary that Court Receiver,
High Court, Bombay be appointed and immediate possession is to be
taken from the Applicant with further direction that the same be
handed over to the Respondent No.1 who is the decree holder.
25. In view of the above discussion following order is passed.
ORDER
i. The Civil Revision Application No.189 of 2025 is
dismissed with cost of Rs.2,00,000/-.
ii. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is
appointed with respect to the suit premises i.e.
Hotel Linkway, Shed No.1, Shop No.1, Census No
KWX-C-19-1/1, Shukla Chawl, Near Vrindavan
Chawl, New Link Road, Kajupada, Behrambaug,
Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400 102 with all the
powers under Order XL of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
iii. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay shall take
forcible possession of the said suit premises
immediately from the Applicant or any other
person found in the possession of the suit premises
or by breaking open the lock, if found in locked
Vaibhav Page No. 33
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
condition with the help of local police officials
forthwith i.e. today and handover the same
immediately to the Respondent No.1.
iv. The necessary charges as per the relevant rules
will be deposited by the Respondent No.1 with the
Court Receiver.
v. The Court Receiver is permitted to take Police
protection. Ms. R. S. Tendulkar, learned APP is
present in Court and she makes a statement on
behalf of the State of Maharashtra that protection
will be given to the Court Receiver for taking
possession of the suit premises. The Senior
Inspector, Jogeshwari / Oshiwara Police Station,
Mumbai or any other appropriate Police Station to
provide adequate Police protection to the officials
of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay for
ensuring compliance of the above directions.
vi. In the facts and circumstances of this case as more
particularly set out in the Order, the Bar Council of
Maharashtra and Goa is directed to conduct
appropriate enquiry in the conduct of Mr. Vijay
Kurle, learned Advocate, in accordance with law.
Vaibhav Page No. 34
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::
927-CRA-189-2025(2).doc
26. Stand over to 15th April 2025 at 2:30 p.m. for reporting
compliance of directions issued to the Court Receiver, High Court,
Bombay.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Vaibhav Page No. 35
::: Uploaded on – 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2025 21:58:15 :::