5-CRA-144-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2018 Vidyadhar Mahav Damle, Thr. Constituted Attorney, Vivek Madhav Damle. … Applicant Vs. Shobha Kolwadkar and Ors. … Respondents Ms. Sheetal Malvankar for the applicant. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 20th February 2026 ORDER : 1. This civil revision application is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge the order passed by the trial court dismissing his suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court failed to consider the legal aspect regarding the plaintiff being in possession of the suit property on the ground that his right involved the power and control over the suit property, even after he had shifted to U.S.A. in 1991. She submits that the trial court failed to take into consideration that the actual physical possession on the date of the filing of 1/5 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:11354 5-CRA-144-2018.docx the suit or on the date of the dispossession would not be the only criteria to decide the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the applicant was always in a settled possession and control over the suit property even after he had shifted to U.S.A. She, therefore, submits that without following the due process of law the defendants had no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. To support the allegations regarding illegal dispossession the plaintiff examined his father as his power of attorney holder and thus, despite the evidence on record that the defendant highhandedly took over the possession of the suit property by breaking open the lock with the help of the police would support the plaintiff’s contentions that he was illegally dispossessed from the suit property. 3. To support her submissions on the point of the interpretation of the word ‘possession’ which would indicate the plaintiff’s control over the suit property, she relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Jaggi and Anr. Vs. Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhury and Ors.1. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the plaintiff had relied upon the various other decisions on 1 AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1243 2/5 5-CRA-144-2018.docx the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to support the plaintiff’s contentions on his control and possession over the suit property and the illegal dispossession of the defendants. She submits that all the decisions though referred to by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment, has not considered the legal principle that supports the plaintiff’s allegations. She, therefore, submits that the civil revision application would require interference by this court. 5. I have perused the papers of the civil revision application. There is no dispute that the plaintiff had occupied the flat sometime in the year 1984 and he left India for U.S.A. in the year 1992. The suit is filed on 28th February 1997 on the ground of illegal dispossession on 2nd September 1996. The suit is filed through the plaintiff’s father as his constituted attorney. The trial court has referred to all the legal principles relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff. Regarding the plaintiff’s control over the suit property and his physical dispossession without following due process of law is not supported by any oral evidence by the plaintiff as he did not step into the witness box. The only evidence led by the plaintiff is through 3/5 5-CRA-144-2018.docx his father as his constituted attorney. 6. The defendants had contended that the plaintiff had permanently shifted to U.S.A., itself falsifies the plaintiff’s case that he was in any lawful possession of the suit property. The defendants contended that they opened the suit flat based on another set of keys available with them and thus, there was no illegal dispossession as alleged. The learned trial court has considered the oral evidence on record and the admissions given by the plaintiff’s witness that he had no document to show that any tenancy rights were created in favour of the plaintiff, as alleged in the suit to contend that he was in lawful or settled possession of the suit property and thus, the property was under his lawful control. 7. All the relevant legal principles and the evidence is exhaustively discussed by the trial court. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court has recorded a positive finding that the plaintiff was unable to prove his lawful possession over the suit property. In the absence of any evidence, to support that the plaintiff had any valid right to occupy the suit property and he had any legal right and control over the suit property, the legal principles relied upon 4/5 5-CRA-144-2018.docx by the learned counsel for the applicant are of no assistance to the applicant. 8. In view of the admitted fact that the plaintiff was not in physical possession of the suit property and he had already left and was residing in U.S.A, the other findings recorded by the trial court disbelieving the plaintiff’s contention of valid possession, the legal principles relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant would not require any further discussion in this civil revision application. 9. I do not find any jurisdictional error or any other manifest error in the impugned judgment to interfere with the impugned judgment in exercise of the powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 10. The civil revision application is devoid of any merits. 11. The civil revision application is dismissed. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 5/5