NAKSHATRA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HIYA ASSOCIATES
LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-181
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 21,2017

Nakshatra Properties Private Limited Appellant
VERSUS
Hiya Associates Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.P.COLABAWALLA,J. - (1.) This Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 26th September, 2016 passed in Revision Application No.333 of 2015 in Execution Application No.31 of 2013. By the impugned order, the Revisional Authority (the Small Causes Court, Appellate Bench, Mumbai) set aside the order dated 28th October, 2015 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Application No.31 of 2013 and further ordered that the Application filed by the Defendants at Exhibit-22 for production of documents was allowed and the Executing Court was directed to reconsider the objections raised by the Defendants. The Re-visional Authority further directed that the objection of the Defendants was to be considered by following the procedure laid down under Order 21, Rule 97 to 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the "CPC").
(2.) This Petition had originally come up before me for admission on 14th June, 2017. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, I was of the opinion that the arguable questions were raised and hence "Rule" was issued. Since the issue in this Writ Petition was a narrow one, it was fixed for final hearing on 29th June, 2017 at 3.00 p.m. Due to paucity of time, on the said date, the matter could not be taken up and has now, therefore, come up before me. This is how the Petition has come up for hearing and final disposal.
(3.) Very few facts need to be noted to dispose of this Writ Petition. The Petitioner is a monthly tenant of Flat No. 101 on the First Floor of Ratneshwar Temple Building owned by Shri Ratneshwar Temple and Smt Kesharbai Jamnadas Majithia, Hindu Sanatorium Trust (for short "the landlord") and situated at 208, Bhagwandas Indrajit Road, Mumbai- 400 006 (for short "the suit premises"). The Petitioner was the Plaintiff before the Trial Court. Respondent No.1 herein is a partnership firm and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the partners of Respondent No.1. The Respondents were the Defendants before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.