- 1 - 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. jmi SUIT NO.2441 OF 1990 (ALONGWITH COURT RECEIVER REPORT DTD.7.09.1999.) Juhu Consumers Stores Ltd. ..Plaintiffs. vs. Mohammed Ayyaz Mohamed Abdul Rehman @ Ayaz Mohamed Shaikh & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Mr.Anil G. Shah, Chairman of Plaintiffs, in person. Mr.Mohammed Ayyaz Mohd. Abdul Rehman, Defendant No.1 in person. Mr.Ahmed Moh. Shaikh, Defendant No.2 in person. Mr.Shaikh Noor Mohamed, Defendant No.3 in person. Mr.M.V. Ravi Kumar, 3rd Party in person. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2009 : 12TH MARCH, 2009 : 12TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners and or entitled to the possession of the suit shop admeasuring 141.55 sq.ft., more particularly described in Exhibit-A to the plaint and that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the said shop or any part thereof. The plaintiffs have also sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from entering into and remaining and/or tress-passing upon the said shop, more particularly described in Exhibit-A to the plaint and/or any part thereof. - 2 - 2. It is the plaintiffs’ case that originally the father of the defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 late Mohamed Abdul Rehman had tress-passed in the suit shop and had filed a suit against the plaintiffs in the City Civil Court being Suit No.5548 of 1984 inter-alia for specific performance of a purported undated declaration made for vacant and peaceful possession of the suit shop and for an order and injunction against the plaintiffs’ society in respect of the suit shop. It is submitted that pending the said suit, the said Mohamed Abdul Rehman died and the suit was abated. The plaintiffs thereafter filed this suit against the heirs of the said late Mohamed Abdul Rehman i.e. the defendant nos.1, 2 & 3. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, is appointed as Receiver of the suit property on 5th September 1991. 3. One Mr.M.V. Ravi Kumar has today sought to intervene in the suit on the ground that the deceased Mohamed Abdul Rehman had allowed him to occupy a table space in the suit premises for which some rent receipt was purportedly issued to him on 14th July 1988 by the deceased Mohamed Abdul Rehman. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 have pointed out to this Court that their father expired on 2nd June 1988 and the question of their father - 3 - issuing any receipt on 14th July 1988 does not arise. They have pointed out that the fact of the deceased Mohamed Abdul Rehman having expired on 2nd June 1988 is recorded in the Roznama of the City Civil Court, Bombay dated 2nd July 1990. They have submitted that Mr. M.V. Ravi Kumar is guilty of the offence of forgery and fabrication of documents. Mr. M.V. Ravi Kumar is unable to explain how he has a receipt issued by the deceased Mohamed Abdul Rehman dated 14th July 1988, when the said Mohamed Abdul Rehman expired on 2nd June 1990. He is also unable to explain what steps he has taken in last 21 years if he has been dispossessed from the suit premises since 1988. The case made out by Mr.Ravi Kumar lacks bonafides and is false. He is, therefore, not allowed to intervene in this suit. 4. Mr. Anil G. Shah, Chairman of the plaintiffs’ appears in person. Defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 are also appearing in person. Parties have tendered consent terms in Court which are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. The said consent terms are signed by all the parties and the same are also translated and interpreted by the Assistant Chief Translator and Interpretor, High Court, Bombay and explained to the defendants in Hindi. - 4 - 5. Under clause (1) of the consent terms, parties have agreed that the suit be decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Under clause (2) of the consent terms, parties have agreed that the Court Receiver shall stand discharged and the monies deposited in the suit account with the Court Receiver alongwith possession of the suit property be handed over to the plaintiffs forthwith. Under clause (3) of the consent terms, it is agreed between the parties that the plaintiffs shall withdraw all the pending contempt proceedings against the defendants. The plaintiff who is appearing in person and the defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 who are also appearing in person have informed this Court that they have understood the contents of the consent terms and signed the consent terms on their own free will and volition and there is no force, fraud or coercion qua the execution of the consent terms. 6. In view thereof, the suit stands disposed of in terms of consent terms dated 12th March 2009 marked ‘X’ for identification. However, it is made clear that the Court Receiver shall stand discharged of the suit property only upon the plaintiffs paying the costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver. - 5 - [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]