11-CRA-773-2015.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 773 OF 2015 Shri Ranjeet Tukaram Vhatkar … Applicant Vs. Shri Anant Poshinath Koli and … Respondents Others Mr. Balakrishna K. Raje for the Applicant. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 21st AUGUST 2026 ORDER : 1. This civil revision application is filed by the original obstructionist to challenge the order passed by the appeal bench of the Small Causes Court. The obstruction notice was dismissed by the trial court. In an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff, his obstruction is ordered to be removed by directing the applicant (obstructionist) to vacate the suit premises, i.e. Room No. 1, and hand over the same to the plaintiff. 2. The original plaintiff had filed a declaratory suit against respondent nos. 2 to 7, who are the landlords. The suit was decreed by holding that the original plaintiff was the tenant in 1/6 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2026.08.25 10:49:16 +0530 11-CRA-773-2015.docx respect of the suit premises, bearing Room No. 1, admeasuring 10’ x 25’. The landlords were directed to hand over one of the three ground-floor rooms to the plaintiff. The decree was obstructed by the present applicant based on an agreement dated 23rd June 2003 executed by defendant nos. 2 to 5. Based on the said agreement, the obstructionist claims to occupy the ground-floor premises. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the suit for declaration was filed without any full description of the property. Room No. 1 is described only as admeasuring 10’ x 25’ without mentioning any description, i.e. boundaries for correct identification of the suit properties. He submits that in the absence of any proper description of the suit property, the decree cannot be executed against the obstructionist who is occupying the ground floor structure, in view of the agreement executed by the original owners/landlord. He relies upon a copy of the agreement and the Court Commissioner Report. He submits that, in the execution proceedings, the Court Commissioner has filed a report showing that no such room admeasuring 250 sq. ft was found. He therefore submits that by ignoring the rights created in favour of the applicant in lieu of 2/6 11-CRA-773-2015.docx the agreement executed in his favour, the decree which is passed in the absence of the present applicant is sought to be executed. 4. He submits that even in the execution, the objection regarding the description of the property can be raised and the decree holder has to satisfactorily establish the identity of the property under execution of the possession decree. He therefore submits that, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence of the description of the suit property, the decree cannot be executed against the present applicant, i.e., the obstructionist, who has an independent right to the ground-floor structure. 5. To support his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shafiqur Rehman Khan and Another vs. Smt. Mohammad Jahan Begum and Others1. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore submits that the impugned order would warrant interference of this court. 6. I have perused the papers of the civil revision application. The declaratory suit by respondent no.1 was filed on 15th May 1 (1982) 2 SCC 456 3/6 11-CRA-773-2015.docx 2000. The suit for a declaration that he is a monthly tenant of room no. 1 admeasuring 10’ x 25’ together with the attic was decreed on 13th September 2006, further directing defendant no. 2 to 5 to hand over possession of one room on the ground floor. The appeal bench of the Small Causes Court has referred to the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, and the interim order passed on 22nd May 2000. By the interim order, the original defendants Nos. 2 to 6 were directed to maintain status quo, and they were restrained from parting with possession of the suit premises or creating any third-party interest. The appellate court has therefore held that the argument relied upon by the obstructionist is based on an agreement executed in breach of the interim order passed in the suit. 7. So far as the description of the property is concerned, the appellate court has discussed the documents on record and the oral evidence led by the parties. The appeal bench has held that the execution of the document relied upon by the obstructionist is incomplete and in breach of the undertaking given by the defendants in the injunction Notice No. 2379 of 2000. So far as establishing an independent right by the obstructionist is concerned, the appeal bench held that no 4/6 11-CRA-773-2015.docx satisfactory evidence was produced to show that the obstructionist was inducted into the suit premises on 23rd June 2003, as claimed by the obstructionist. In the absence of establishing any independent right in respect of the suit premises, the appeal bench has allowed the original plaintiff’s appeal and made the obstructionist’s notice absolute. 8. On perusal of the agreement relied upon by the present applicant, no right of the applicant is established in respect of the suit premises. The agreement is bereft of any description of the property or particulars regarding the handing over of possession. Thus, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence establishing the right of the obstructionist, the appeal court has rightly directed removal of the obstruction. 9. I do not find any jurisdictional error or any other manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned order. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence in favour of the obstructionist regarding his independent right, title and interest in respect of the suit premises, the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant would not be of any assistance to the applicant. 10. The civil revision application is devoid of any merit. 5/6 11-CRA-773-2015.docx Hence, the civil revision application is dismissed. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 6/6