8. cra 394-11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 394 OF 2011 Hiraman Sayaji Bhote & Ors .. Applicants Vs M/s. Prime Properties & Ors .. Respondents Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for the Applicants Mr. P.S. Dani for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9th JUNE, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 10th January 2011 passed by 3rd Additional Judge and Jt. C.J.S.D., Pune rejecting the application under Section 47 of Code of Civll Procedure of the revision applicants. 3. A decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the respondents and against the revision applicants. The revision applicants were directed to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the respondents on receiving the balance consideration of Rs. 12 Lacs. As the revision applicants failed to execute the sale deed, the 1 8. cra 394-11.doc respondents filed an execution petition. 4. The revision applicants opposed the execution petition contending that the decree was null and void and not executable. The learned counsel for the revision applicants urged before me two grounds; firstly, the revision applicants were not the sole owners but there were other co-owners, hence decree could not be executed. Secondly, he submitted that permission of the collector was necessary under Section 43 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short, 'the Act') for sale of the property. Since the permission was not obtained, the decree could not be executed. 5. In my view, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the revision applicants have no merits. As regards the first contention, the decree would be binding on the revision applicants to the extent of whatever right, title, interest and share they have in the suit property. If any other person claims any right in the suit property, he would be free to establish his rights by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. The execution proceedings cannot be withheld on the ground that any other person may possibly be a co-owner of the suit property. 6. As regards the second contention, it is not clear how the 2 8. cra 394-11.doc Section 43 of the said Act is applicable. Assuming however that the permission is necessary, the executing Court would be competent to appoint a court commissioner for applying for such permission, if the permission is found necessary. The sale deed would be executed only after the permission is granted. If the permission is necessary and is refused, the executing Court would then pass appropriate orders. With these observations, the revision application is dismissed. [ D.G. KARNIK, J ] 3 8. cra 394-11.doc 4