← Library
Bombay High CourtCAW/517/2016disposed off

Allahabad Bank Through Mr. Raghvan Natarajan v. Mr. Brijpal Singh Thakur

2016-02-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice C.V. Bhadang,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Oka2 pages

caw517 ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.517 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.831 OF 2016 Allahabad Bank & Ors.

...Applicant In the matter between Brijpal Singh Thakur

...Petitioner

vs.

Allahabad Bank & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr.V.N.Ajikumar for the applicant Ms Barsha Parulekar for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA, & C.V.BHADANG, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2016 P.C.:

.

Not on board. Taken on board.

Papers of this Civil Application were produced by the Advocate for the applicant (respondent in the writ petition) on 24th February 2016. It was adjourned till today to enable the learned counsel for the respondent (the petitioner in the writ petition) to take instructions. Ad-interim relief was granted by this Court on 18th February 2016 protecting the possession of the writ petitioner. What is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant is the averment made in paragraph 27 of the writ petition which reads thus:

"27 The respondent No.3 in violation of

caw517 Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure r/w Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure evicted the petitioner in the month of March 2015 from the premises without notice."

There is no averment made thereafter that the possession was lawfully restored to the writ petitioner.

The attention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner was invited to the said averment on 24th February 2016. Today, she has tendered certain documents indicating that the petitioner is undergoing dialysis. She states that what is stated in paragraph 27 is an inadvertent mistake. She relied upon the rent receipts. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent in the writ petition is that symbolic possession of the premises was taken in 2013 when the premises was found to be closed and all the rent receipts appeared to be created subsequently on the same date. There is an assertion in the paragraph 27 of the petition that the petitioner was dispossessed in March 2015. Even assuming that the petitioner is in possession today, unless it is shown that the possession was lawfully restored, the petitioner is not entitled to any protection. Accordingly, ad-interim relief granted in the writ petition is vacated. Civil Application is disposed of.

(C.V.BHADANG,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)