Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6366 of 2007 M/s. Rana Constructions ...Petitioner V/s. Komal Pratap Singh ...Resopndent Mr. P.R.Arjunwadkar for the petitioner. Mr. A.Y.Sakhare i/b. R.S.Datar for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 6TH JANUARY, 2009 : 6TH JANUARY, 2009 : 6TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. Essentially two points were raised before me. The first contention is that the receipt which has been taken into account by the Court below was not admissible in evidence. This aspect has been considered by the two Courts below. At the inter-locutory stage both the Courts below have prima-facie accepted the case of the plaintiffs with particular reference to the stand taken in the affidavit by an independent person Mr. Nathani. As a matter of fact in the written-statement petitioner-defendant concedes that he had handed over possession of the suit flat to Mr. Nathani but for limited purpose of carrying out finishing work. Be that as it may, non-production of the original receipt at this stage or for that matter production of zerox receipt by the plaintiff before the Lower Court does not go against the plaintiff for the 2 reasons recorded by the two Courts below. The view so taken is a prima-facie view which is a possible view at this inter-locutory stage. 2. The second contention raised before this Court is that from the document at page-66 which is a letter sent under signature of the plaintiff dated 20th May, 2007, it is noticed that the plaintiff concedes that the plaintiff was not in possession before institution of the suit. If it is so, the suit for mandatory relief was not the proper proceedings. Even this aspect has been considered by the Courts below. The Appeal Court in paragraph 7 has dealt with the matter considering the stand taken by the petitioner-defendant that the defendant was unwilling to assert that he had never handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. In other words, both the Courts below have proceeded on the basis of plaintiff’s claim that the plaintiff was put in possession and defendant has created obstruction of such nature which virtually interferes with the possession of the suit flat of the plaintiff. It is in that context Courts below have passed the impugned order directing the defendant to remove the lock and the gate as specified in paragraph 5 of the plaint. In my opinion, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. 3 3. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it be made clear that Trial Court shall decide suit on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations in the impugned decision or for that matter in the present order. There is no difficulty in accepting this suggestion. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]