1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 10 OF 2010 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 246 OF 2004 Lalchand Chandwada. ..Applicant/JC. Vs. AshokKumar T. Bhatia and anr. ..Respondents./JD Mr.Vinit Naik along with Mr.Vaibhav Sugdane and Yogesh Naidy i/by ?Anjali Jadhav for the Applicant. Mr. Sandeep Parekh with Mr.S.Deshmukh i/by India LawAlliance forthe Respondents. Ms. Hetal Patel for the obstructionist. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 22nd June, 2010 PC : 1 This is a chamber summons taken out by the original Judgment Creditor for issue of fresh warrant of possession under Order XXI Rules 35 and 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of Flat being Flat No.74 situated at 7th floor of the Building known as Satnam Apartments Ltd. Opp. World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. It is the case of the Judgment Creditor that after the Arbitration award was filed in this court, the present execution came to be filed. The Warrant of possession was sought in respect of the aforesaid flat No.74 as 2 the same stood in the name of the Judgment debtor. When the bailiff went to execute the award, he found that there was a third party in possession. The third party is the real brother of the Judgment debtor. A Chamber summons in the nature of obstructionist proceeding came to be filed under Order XXI Rule 97 to 105 of the C.P.C. The said Chamber summons was required to be taken out within 30 days but the same was filed after 50 days. On behalf of the obstructionist, a contention was taken that the chamber summons was barred by limitation. This contention on behalf of the obstructionist came to be accepted by the court and the said chamber summons was dismissed by the court with liberty to take out appropriate proceeding. Consequently this chamber summons has been filed for issuance of a fresh warrant . The Advocate for the Judgment debtor states that the shares certificate in respect of the flat is in his name. Advocate appearing for the original obstructionist contents that her client also has a share certificate. The title of the obstructionist is however, a matter which need not be gone into in this chamber summons Advocate for the Judgment Creditor placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of Suban Bi Sheikh Noor and another (D.H.) Vs. Abdul Samad Haji Abdul Rehman and ors. reported in 1978 Mh.L.J. 519 in which the Division bench of this court took a view that a fresh warrant of possession of property in execution under Order 21 3 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code after an obstruction to possession under an earlier warrant was permissible. That the period of limitation for the purpose of making an application under Order 21 Rule 97 will operate independently as an when resistance is offered and it was not permissible to add the words” the date of first resistance or first obstruction” in Order 21 Rule 97. It was held that after a fresh warrant was issued and fresh resistance was offered, an application would lie within 30 days of such fresh resistance inspite of the fact that the resister is the same and raises an obstruction of same kind. The Division Bench Judgment covers the present case and renders the present chamber summons as maintainable. In so far as the obstruction is concerned, he has no locus at this stage. Her contention relating to her title of the property under attachment in execution are still open and she can raise all contentions on merits in Chamber Summons that may be file for removing her obstruction. Chamber summons stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (R.S. MOHITE, J.)