1/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt Salgaonkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11846 OF 2025 Pradeep Rikhabchand Jain .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through Commissioner for Co-Operation and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State & Ors. .. Respondents … Mr.Nikhil Mengde (through VC) with Mr.Siddhesh Dalvi and Mr.Rahul Shirgavkar for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P.Kakade, Additional G.P. with Smt.Savita A. Prabhune, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent. Mr.Nikhil Rajani i/b M/s.V. Deshpande & Co. for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 07th JULY, 2026 ... P.C:- 1. The Petitioner seek the following reliefs :- “(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondent No.1, 2 and/or 3 to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. House No. 1200, constructed on piece and parcel of land admeasuring about 258 Sq. Yards, situated at Near Hanuman Mandir, Ghansoli, Thane Belapur Road, Taluka and District Thane, along with original title documents to the Petitioner. MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR Digitally signed by MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR Date: 2026.07.08 19:10:15 +0530 2/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt (c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to pay compensation on account of their failure to hand over possession of the suit property, at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per day from 01.12.2023 till the date of handing over of possession and original title documents, in accordance with Reserve Bank of India guidelines. (d) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to pay the license fee of Rs. 15,000/- per month from January 2012 till handing over possession of the suit property to the Petitioner.” 2. On hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner, who has marked his appearance on-line, and the learned counsel representing Respondent Nos.2 and 3, our attention is invited to the order passed by the Judge, Co-Operative Court, Thane in Case No. CC/T/907 of 2005 between the Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and M/s PVC Plastics (Proprietorship of Rikabchand Jain) and the order discloses that the dispute is disposed of in the wake of the pursis and an application Gled before the Court and, it stood withdrawn by the disputant. It is submitted before us by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the dispute having been amicably settled, a ‘No-due CertiGcate’ is also issued to the proprietor/borrower. 3. The Petition now seek a relief against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the effect that he should be put back in possession of the suit property and it also seek return of the original title documents. Relief is also sought for payment of compensation, if the premises are not handed over alongwith the original title documents. It is worth to note that on the date, when the subject property was attached in terms of the Award dated 3/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt 18/06/2006 from the Co-Operative Court, Thane in favour of Thane Janata Sahakari Bank and the demand notices were issued, the subject property belonging to Mr.Pradeep Rikhabchand Jain was held to be liable for attachment and sold in execution of the Recovery CertiGcate. This is the same subject property, which was also the subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No.712 of 2011. The description of the property involved is as below :- “Immovable Property being House No.1200, Near Hanuman Mandir, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai, belonging to Mr.Pradeep Rikabchand Jain” 4. When the Attachment Order was executed, the Special Recovery OfGcer of the Respondent No.3-Bank, directed as below :- “3. The possession of the attached immovable properties is kept with Mr.Subhash Chand Gadiya & Mr.Pritesh Subhash Gadiya, as a custodian of the undersigned. They should take proper care of attached immovable property.” This order being passed on 27/01/2009, indicates that the possession of the immovable property is kept with Mr.Subhash Chand Gadiya and Mr.Pritesh Subhash Gadiya and it is the speciGc contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that they were already in possession of the said property and this property was never mortgaged with the Bank. 5. A copy of the plaint Gled in Regular Civil Suit No.712 of 2011 is placed before us, which sought a relief of declaration and injunction, the plaintiffs in the said suit being Shri Subhash Kesharchand Gadiya and Shri Pritish Subhash 4/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt Gadiya and the subject matter is the very same property and the plaintiffs pleaded that they were put in possession of the said property by Shri Rikabchand Jain and Mrs.Padmavati Jain as a monthly tenant, with other stipulations speciGcally set out. The plaint speciGcally pleaded that since inception of their tenancy, they are in possession and are regularly paying the monthly rent and in the backdrop of the pleadings, the plaint sought a relief against the defendant, Shri Pradeep Rikabchand Jain, not to disturb their peaceful possession or dispossess them without following a due process of law. Admittedly, this Suit cam be to be dismissed on 06/02/2023. 6. It is the case of the Petitioner that since it is the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who put Subhash Gadiya and Pritish Gadiya in possession of the suit property, it shall be restored back to him. We Gnd this statement to be incorrect, as from the pleadings in the Suit itself, it is evident that Gadiyas are tenants of Rikabchand Jain and they were in possession of the suit premises and what the Recovery ofGcer did, when he passed the Attachment Order, is merely continued them to be in possession, by designating them as custodian of the property. In any case, since now the Suit Gled by Gadiyas is dismissed, there is no legal impediment for the Petitioner to secure possession of the property, but this is a different course of action to be followed, as we are unaware of other factual 5/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt aspects and we, in our writ jurisdiction, cannot get into this aspect. For this purpose, we permit the Petitioner to adopt such remedies which are available to him in law. However, as far as one of the relief in the Petition to hand over the original title documents to the Petitioner is concerned, since it is the case of the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that this property was never mortgaged and the title deeds are not with the Bank, by way of abundant caution, we only say that in case if the property is mortgaged and if the Petitioner has any proof thereof, he shall forward it to Respondent No. 3-Bank, which shall then ascertain whether any title deeds/original documents are with the Bank and since the settlement is already effected with the borrower and the Bank, the documents shall be returned. With the aforesaid, the Petition stands disposed of. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)