1 CHS1730.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1730 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1398 OF 2006 Mr. Mushtaq Naik. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Mr. Sayed Abdul Hameed. ... Defendant. And Abdul Aziz Abdul Karim Barudgar. ... Applicant. Mr. Peter Coutinho i/b. Clement Lobo for the Plaintiff. Mr. Anand Charanbir for the Defendant. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 09th DECEMBER 2010. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsels on both sides. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the Applicant, who claims that he is the owner of the flat which has been attached pursuant to the Warrant of Attachment dated 17th September 2008 on account of decree being passed in this Suit on 21st November 2006 against the Defendants. 2. In support of the stand of the Applicant that he is the owner of the flat, the Applicant has placed before the Court a document titled as Agreement for Sale dated 29th October 2007 between the Defendant and the present Applicant. Copy 2 CHS1730.10.sxw of the Agreement for Sale dated 29th October 2007 tendered by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is taken on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that by this document the Applicant is the owner of the flat in question and therefore, the attachment needs to be raised and therefore, till the Chamber Summons is heard and disposed of, the execution of the decree is required to be stayed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff opposed by contending that by agreement for sale dated 29th October 2007, the Applicant cannot claim ownership of the flat in question, even if for a moment the said document is accepted as true and correct. 5. I have perused the text of the document dated 29th October 2007. A reading of the same as a whole would go to show that it is an Agreement for Sale. No sale deed has been executed. I say this because no document of sale deed is produced before the Court. Learned Counsel for the Applicant tried to submit that this document should be treated as sale deed conferring ownership of the Applicant. He justify this contention by saying that he is in possession and has paid full consideration. I do not agree with the submissions. Document dated 29th October 2007 titled as Agreement for Sale is not a document of sale, the flat is not conveyed to the Applicant. The Applicant is not a owner of the suit flat. As of 3 CHS1730.10.sxw today, the Applicant has no privity with the said ownership rights and therefore, the Applicant has failed to make out prima-facie case for the purposes of seeking the relief of raising the attachment. As such, the application for ad- interim relief as per prayer clause (b) cannot be granted. Request for ad-interim relief is rejected. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)