1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL REVSION APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2009. Ahmad Ali Sadiq Ali and anr. ..vs.. Dr.Mrs.Akhtarunisa w/o Khalik Ansari. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.R.Ahmad Riyaz Ahmad, Adv.for the applicants. Mr.R.R.Vyas, Adv. for the respondent. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 6th January, 2010. 1. This Civil Revision Application is filed to assail the judgment and decree dated 8th May, 2009 passed by 9th Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Nagpur in the suit filed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The revision application is opposed by the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that - The respondent – a Medical Practitioner – was running a Clinic in the name and style as ‘Ansari Maternity and Nursing Home’ in the suit premises belonging to the revision-applicants. She was 2 occupying the premises as a tenant of the revision applicants. On 27th September, 2002 at about 6 a.m., the revision-applicants forcibly removed her from the tenanted premises by removing articles of clinic of the respondent. She filed complaint with police on the same day but the police directed her to approach the court for redressal. The revision-applicants had defended the suit contending that the respondent had voluntarily removed the articles from the suit premises on 24th September, 2002. On the next day i.e. on 26th September, 2002 her constituted attorney i.e. her nephew approached to the revision-applicants and demanded Rs.10,000/-. As the revision- applicants failed to pay the amount to him, the respondent is alleged to have filed false proceedings against the revision-applicants. 3. Respondent examined herself and one Panjabrao Chaudhary in support of her case. In rebuttal, the revision-applicants examined applicant no.1 and one Babbu Khan in support of his case. The trial court after perusal of the evidence of the parties found that revision-applicant no.1 had forcibly removed the respondent from the suit premises and decreed the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the revision-applicants 3 submits that the decree for possession could not have been passed by the trial court because the revision- applicants have already inducted Babbu Khan as the tenant in the suit premises. He submits that the suit was dismissed for default on 30th June, 2005 and thereafter on 12th of July, 2005 the revision applicants inducted the tenant in the suit premises. Since there is a legal right created in favour of the tenant at the time when there were no proceedings, the court ought to have taken the fact into consideration while passing decree for possession. 5. It is not possible to agree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision applicants. The court has already found that revision applicants had taken law in their hands and forcibly removed the respondent from the suit premises. After the suit was dismissed for default on 30th June, 2005, revision-applicant no.1 did not loose any time in creating third party rights over the suit premises. This was obviously done in order to frustrate the proceedings of the respondent. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that the tenant may obstruct execution of the decree as and when the execution is sought by the respondent and the executing court will take into consideration the claim of the person inducted by the 4 revision-applicants in the suit premises. It is not open for the revision-applicants to challenge the impugned judgment and decree on such a ground. I am in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent. There is no question falling for consideration for the court in the revision application. There is no illegality or other infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this revision application is dismissed. JUDGE. chute