ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 957 OF 2003 NO. 957 OF 2003 NO. 957 OF 2003 IN IN IN CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.206 OF 2003 SUMMONS NO.206 OF 2003 SUMMONS NO.206 OF 2003 IN IN IN APPLICATION APPLICATION APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION (L) NO.302 OF 2001 FOR EXECUTION (L) NO.302 OF 2001 FOR EXECUTION (L) NO.302 OF 2001 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 125 OF 1976 NO. 125 OF 1976 NO. 125 OF 1976 Zubedabai W/o. Mulla Husseinibhai Noorbhai Lokhandwalla & Ors. ...Appellants. Vs. Chandrabhagabai W/o. Pandurang Fatoji Bhutal & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.J.M.Sidhwa i/by M/s. Zaidy & Co. for the Appellants. Ms. Nita Mandhyan for Respondent Nos. 2(a) & 2(b), 14, 22(a) to 22(f). CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(b), 14, and 22(a) to 22(f). By this Appeal, the Appellants are challenging the order dated 23rd July, 2003 only to the limited extent with regard to the exemplary costs quantified at Rs.1,000/- to each of the Defendants. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellants pointed out ( 2 ) that only Defendant Nos.1 and 15 are really concerned in the above matter. In the sense, none of the other defendants were in actual physical possession of Survey No. 24, Hissa 5. The other Defendants were impleaded prior to Survey being carried out and after proper survey, it is found that only Defendant No.1 and 15 were residing in Survey No.24, Hissa 5 upon which the Appellants were declared as owners by order of Decree dated 1st July, 1994. 3. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the Appellants states that the above exemplary Costs of Rs.1,000/- against each of the Defendants was exorbitant and harsh. Having regard to the above extent, we also feel that the exemplary costs quantified at Rs.1,000/- to each of the Defendants ought not to have been awarded and that part of the order stands set aside. 2. Appeal is allowed only to the above extent. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)