1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 81 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2706 OF 2005 M/s.Crystal Traders BVBA. ...Claimant. Vs. Sambhav Diamonds ...Respondent. And Yashwant L. Jain. ...Applicant. .... Ms.Neha Mehta with Ms. Renuka Lele i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. Mehul A. Shah i/b. Mr.A.G. Shah for the Applicant. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. July 20, 2009. P.C. The Chamber Summons has been instituted for raising an attachment that has been levied on certain immovable properties under Order 21 Rule 54 and an attachment on movable property under Order 21 Rule 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The immovable property in question is Office No.310, situated on the third 2 floor of Rupraj Building, 497, S.V.P. Road, Mumbai-400 004. The warrant of attachment under Order 21 Rule 54 specifies the property which is being attached as follows in its schedule: “Right, title and interest of the Defendant abovenamed in their ownership premises situated at 310, Rupraj Building, 497, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Road, Opera House, Mumbai 400 004.” The applicant to the Chamber Summons claims interest as tenant in respect of the premises of the office and he claims the ownership of the movable articles situated in the premises. In other words, it is an admitted position that the applicant does not claim ownership of the premises. Ex-facie, the warrant of attachment seeks to attach the right, title and interest of the Defendants on the basis that the premises are of an ownership nature in which the Defendants have interest. On a reading of the warrant of attachment, it is evident that the interest, if any, of the applicant as a tenant is not affected by the warrant of attachment. During the course of hearing, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Decree-holder has 3 also stated before the Court that the Decree-holder has not sought to levy any attachment on the alleged right of the applicant as a tenant in respect of the premises. The Learned Advocate also states that in order to obviate any controversy in regard to movable articles and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Decree-holder, the Decree holder does not press the attachment in respect of the movable articles. In these circumstances, the Learned Advocate for the applicant does not press Chamber Summons No.81 of 2009 which shall accordingly stand disposed of in terms of the statement made before the Court. The attachment under Order 21 Rule 43 in respect of the movable property shall stand set aside. Needless to add that since neither the Judgment-debtor, nor for that matter the landlady from whom the applicant claims tenancy, has moved the Court in these proceedings, the right of a third party would not be affected by this order. ......