1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 3/2010. Manoj Balram Khiyani -: VERSUS :- Anjanabai Narayan Bankar and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2010. The present Civil Revision Application is to be disposed of along with Writ Petition No. 208 of 2010, as per orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel states that since 2004 the applicant is in possession of the shop block in relation to which Civil Suit was filed by the non-applicant no.1 vide Regular Civil Suit No. 255/1993. The owner of the shop block i.e. the Municipal Council was party defendant with its allottee namely present non-applicant no.3. The Municipal Council specifically took a defence in that suit that plaintiff in that suit i.e. present non-applicant no.1 is not in possession, however, that suit came to be decreed on 18.04.2007. The Revision Applicant was not party thereto 2 and after receipt of notice of execution, the revision applicant filed objection under Order 21 Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code and also sought stay of further proceedings in execution, till the objection was decided. That objection has been rejected by the impugned order passed below Exh. 38 and 39-A on 08.01.2010. The learned counsel states that objection has been rejected by following doctrine of lis pendence, when suit filed was only for permanent injunction. Shri Khamborkar, learned counsel who appeared for present non-applicant no.1 in Writ Petition has stated that he has no instructions about the present matter. Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for non-applicant no.2 Municipal Council states that the Municipal Council has already taken appropriate stand before the Executing Court. Shri Gadmade, learned counsel for non-applicant no.3 points out that the non-applicant no.3 was the original allottee from the Municipal Council and he surrendered suit block to Municipal Council long back. Hence, at present non- applicant no.3 is not interested in execution. It is apparent that the suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 255/1993 was only for injunction. The trial Court has not explained how the doctrine of lis pendence can be imported and applied in dispute in that suit. However, as non-applicant no.1 is not appearing, I do not find it proper 3 to conclude the issue at this state. The objection raised by the applicant was satisfied by the municipal council and prima facie it appears that he was placed in possession in 2004. Again it is not necessary to conclude this aspect and the Executing Court can look into it after giving due opportunity to the parties before it. The said possession however, needs to be protected till the objection of applicant is dealt with by the Executing Court. For this purpose, the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 passed below Exh. 38 and 39-A in Regular Darkhast No.5/2007 by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur is hereby quashed and set aside. The possession of applicant over the property in dispute is protected till his objection filed vide Exh.38 is decided in accordance with the law by the Executing Court. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court above only for the purpose of grant of interim relief and shall not influence the Executing Court while disposing the objection finally. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.