IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6772 OF 2005 Mohandas Kotian ...Petitioner V/s. Seema Manohar Parmanand & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.T.G.Vora i/b M/s.Tamhane & Co. for Petitioner. Mr.Kunal Bhanage with Ms.Nivedita Prabhu for Respondents 1 & 2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 5, 2009. FEBRUARY 5, 2009. FEBRUARY 5, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The Court below has directed the Court Receiver to hand over total area of 207.24 sq.ft. shown in pink and orange colour to the Plaintiff. Taking clue from the plan, which was on record of the Trial Court in earlier point of time Annexure A at page 87, it is argued that the area shown in red is much less than 207.24 sq.ft. Besides, to assume : 2 : that the area to be handed over to the Plaintiff in terms of the decree should be 207.24 sq.ft., the Court below has relied on a new plan, which was handed over for the first time to the Court after the decree. I find no substance in this submission. What is overlooked by the Counsel for the Petitioner is that the description of the suit property is given in the plaint as follows: EXHIBIT-"A" EXHIBIT-"A" EXHIBIT-"A" SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY Being office premises having cabins admeasuring 13’-6" x 12’-6" together with a waiting room of 6’-5" width attached thereto situate lying and being at K.K.Chambers, (previously known as Navsari Chambers), Ground floor, Sir Purshottam Das Thakurdas Marg, opposite ANZ Grindlays Bank, For, Mumbai-400 001." 3. The correctness of that description was put in issue before the Trial Court which can be found from the discussion in Paragraph 3 at internal pages 3 and 4 of the Judgment and Decree passed in the Suit. It is not in dispute that the said Judgment and Decree was made subject matter of challenge before this Court by way of Revision Application which has been dismissed. As the Trial : 3 : Court having accepted the description and the description matches with the coloured portion shown in the plan, no fault can be found with the direction issued by the lower Court to the Court Receiver to hand over that portion of the property. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that if the old plan is juxtaposed with the new plan, it will be noticed that some portion of the premises is not taken into account and left out from the calculation and the method of identifying the premises as suit premises, is erroneous. It is not possible to accept this argument. The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff was dispossessed from the entire premises shown in coloured portion of the plaint and not only from the part of the premises thereof. The direction issued by the Trial Court to the Court Receiver is to restore such premises which are described in Schedule of the property in the plan and on which basis, the final order has been passed. The grievance of the Petitioner, if entertained, will permit the Petitioner to question the correctness of the finding recorded by the Trial Court in : 4 : Paragraph 3 of his Judgment which has already become final. Hence, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted, especially because the Trial Court has observed that it will be open to the Petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy if so advised. That liberty is kept intact. 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms. 6. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Receiver be directed to hand over the balance portion of the premises to the Petitioner. That is not the subject matter of this Petition. The Petitioner may approach the appropriate Court for whatever relief as may be advised, which will have to be considered on its own merits. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.