* 1 * Appeal(l).382.2011 28.6.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL [LODG] NO. 382 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 902 OF 2011 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 581 OF 2011 IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDING NO.1 OF 2006 M/s. Simrin Developers Pvt. Ltd ....Appellant/Orig.Applicant V/S. 1. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federal of India Ltd & Ors. ....Respondents * * * * * Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Usha Srivastav, i/by. Consulta Juris, Advocate fort he appellant. Mr. Shashipal Shankar, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. N.G. Thakkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prasad Das, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM :- MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. 28th June, 2011. P.C. :- 1. What is challenged in this appeal is the order dated 14th June, 2011 of the learned trial judge of this Court disposing off Chamber Summons No. 902 of 2011 which was filed by the present appellant * 2 * Appeal(l).382.2011 28.6.2011 seeking certain reliefs more particularly, for vacating the order dated 6th May, 2011 which was passed without the appellant getting any opportunity of being heard. 2. The appellant contends that the appellant is in possession of the suit land on the basis of an agreement to purchase the property from respondent no.2 herein. It is contended that though the suit property was already attached in December 2010, subsequently, in May 2011 respondent no.2 took out an application for posting guards to guard the attached property without pointing out the agreement of sale in favour of the appellant and the fact that the appellant is already in possession of the suit property. It is submitted that the order dated 6th May, 2011 obtained by the respondents ought to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel for respondent no.2, submits that, the remedy of the appellant is to take out appropriate proceedings including an application for raising the attachment on the suit property. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 denies the allegations made on behalf of the appellant and states that respondent no.2 does not propose to disturb the appellant’s possession on the suit property and that the security guards posted by the office of the Sheriff pursuant to the order of the learned trial judge be posted outside the entrance of the suit property and will not go inside the suit land. The learned counsel for respondent * 3 * Appeal(l).382.2011 28.6.2011 no.1 also makes similar statement. The learned counsel for respondent no.1, as well as, learned counsel for respondent no.2 further state that they have made aforesaid statements in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant will act in consonance of the order of attachment and not create any third party rights or part with possession of the suit property or any part thereof in favour of the third parties. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, states that the appellant will make an application for raising the attachment levied on the suit property within 4 weeks from today. In view of the aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 in our view, no prejudice will be caused to the appellant by posting of security guards by the Sheriff of Bombay for the purpose of protection of the attached property. We make it clear that we shall not be treated to express any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties. All contentions are kept open. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] [CHIEF JUSTICE]