1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.417 OF 2008 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2006 IN SOLAPUR SPL. CIVIL SUIT NO. 605 OF 1996 Shree Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Plaintiffs Vs. Akshar Pack through its Proprietor Lalit Patel ...Defendants And Giriraj Packers through its Proprietor, Ramanlal B. Patel ...Applicants Ms.N.V. Desai for Plaintiffs Ms. Neeta Parikh for Applicants CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 6TH MAY, 2008 P.C. 1. This application is taken out for raising attachment levied under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 43 and 54 of C.P.C. The suit has been filed since 1996. An Ex-parte decree was obtained by the Plaintiffs in Execution. The warrant of attachment and sale was served upon the Defendants on 25 th June 2007. The movable and immovable properties of the Defendants came to be attached on 19th 2 December 2007. These properties are at an office premises in Room No.119- C Bombay Talkies Compound, Malad (West), Mumbai- 400 064. 2. The Applicants claim to be in possession of the premises. The Applicants have produced certain documents evidencing to be in possession. These are Certificate of Registration under Section 22 of Bombay Sales Tax Act, Certificate of Registration under Shops and Establishment Act, a single Rent receipt issued by one Ramkumar Jalan Public Charitable Trust and one Electricity bill of the Applicants. These documents do not show the title of the Applicants in the suit premises to claim raising of attachment levied in Execution of a decree. That is not shown. 3. These documents at best show the possession of the Applicants in the suit premises. They do not show lack of title in or possession of the Defendants. A single rent receipt also does not show the interest created in favour of the Applicants from a given date. Bonafies of any such interest could only be shown by a series of rent receipts coupled with the landlord's affidavit showing the creation of tenancy rights in favour of the Applicant and from a specific period. 4. The address of the Defendants in the Suit as well as in 3 the Execution of the Decree has been the place where the Applicants are shown to be carrying on business. The Applicant's Proprietor is the brother of the Defendants' Proprietor. The Applicants may also be carrying on business at the same address. However, that does not give Applicants any right to raise the attachment over the property of the Defendant. 5. The Warrant of Attachment is also in respect of movable properties. Movable properties are at the place of business of the Defendants and, therefore, primafacie must be taken to be properties of the Defendants. It is for the Applicants to show by separate individual evidence how, each or any of the movables belongs to them and not the Defendants. That is not shown. 6. No case for rising of attachment is made out. 7. Chamber Summons is dismissed. Execution Application shall proceed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)