* 1 * W.P. 3094.2003 14.10.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3094 OF 2003 Shri Prakash Purushottam Nagvekar .... Petitioner Vs. Shri Bhupal Appa Navale & Ors. .... Respondents * * * * Mr. R.R. Salvi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. Vagyani, Advocate for respondents. * * * * Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 14th October, 2010. P.C. 1. This writ petition filed under Article 227, Constitution of India challenges the order dated 29th April 2000 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli in Regular Darkhast No.352 of 1996 in Regular Civil Suit No.597 of 1995 and * 2 * W.P. 3094.2003 14.10.2010 the order dated 1st March 2003 passed by the same court on the application for review of the order at Exhibit-112 . Original respondent no.1 herein was a tenant of one Kanitkar in respect of four rooms in the building bearing CTS No.131, 131/1 to 131/5 at Sangli. On 10th November 1995, present respondent no.2 purchased the property of Mr. Kanitkar for redevelopment. He proposed to put up new construction by demolishing the old building. On 11th December 1995, original respondent no.2 filed Regular Civil Suit No.597 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli against respondent no.1 for possession of the rented premises in his occupation. On the very next date i.e. on 12th December 1995, consent decree was passed in the suit. Pursuant to the consent decree, respondent no. 2 agreed to give a flat to respondent no.1 on the second floor of the building for the consideration of Rs.1,02,770/-. Later when respondent no.2 started avoiding execution of sale-deed in favour of respondent no.1 and handing over * 3 * W.P. 3094.2003 14.10.2010 possession of the flat, as per consent terms, execution proceedings came to be filed on 28th December 1996. In the said proceedings, respondent no.2 gave an oral undertaking to the court that he will not sell the flat in question to a third person or create any third party rights over the same. In view of this oral undertaking, the decree-holder had not pressed for any relief of interim protection in the execution proceedings. Despite decree, pendency of the execution proceedings and the oral undertaking given therein, respondent no.2 sold the flat to respondent no.3, Sitabai. Therefore, Sitabai was impleaded to the execution proceedings. The record shows that thereafter there has been further transfer in respect of the premises in question. Sitabai had entered into an agreement dated 24th November 1997 in favour of the present petitioner. She executed registered sale-deed for the consideration of Rs.2,40,000/-. By the order dated 29th April 2000, the execution proceedings filed by original respondent no.1 were allowed, * 4 * W.P. 3094.2003 14.10.2010 pursuant to which, the sale-deed in respect of the flat in question was executed through court on 3rd May 2000 in favour of original respondent no.1. On 25th January 2002, the petitioner came to be impleaded to the execution proceedings on his own application, vide order dated 25th April 2004. After impleading himself to the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed application for review at Exhibit 112, in which he contended that he is a bonafide purchaser for consideration, without knowledge of the proceedings between original respondent no.1, respondent no. 2 and respondent no.3 and therefore, he should not be compelled to deliver possession of the premises in question to original respondent no.1. He would suffer irreparable loss and damages. Original respondent no.1 contested the application contending that both, the petitioner and respondent no.3 had been put up by respondent no.2 in order to defeat the claim of original respondent no.1. The executing court accepted the contention of original * 5 * W.P. 3094.2003 14.10.2010 respondent no.1 and rejected the application for review since the transfer of premises in question had been not only during the pendency of the execution application but also in defiance of the undertaking given by respondent no.2 to the Court. 2. I have carefully gone through the entire record of the case with the assistance of counsel appearing in the matter. It is obvious from the record that the sale of the premises in question in favour of the petitioner was in defiance of the undertaking given. The finding of the executing court that the petitioner had knowledge of the litigation pending between original respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, is completely supported by the material on record. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner who had an agreement of sale in his favour as far as back as 24th November 1997 and had been put in possession thereof was not aware of the execution proceedings, to which his vendor was subsequently made a party. In these circumstances, * 6 * W.P. 3094.2003 14.10.2010 there is no merit in the writ petition filed. The only remedy available to the petitioner would be to proceed with damages against his vendor. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)