1 Spb/- IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL SIDE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2005 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1277 OF 2003 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 282 OF 2003 IN AWARD DATED 29TH MAY, 2001 Mr. Ashok Ravi Shankar Naval ... Appellant. (Applicant in Ch.summons) V/s. Mr. Rafique Sarang ... Respondent. (Org.Defendent) Mr. Babubhai Thiba ... Respondent. (Org.Plaintiff) V/s. The Sheriff of Bombay,High Court Old Secretariat Bldg.Mumbai. ...Respondents. --- Mr.P.J.Thorat for the Appellant. Mr.S.K.Chaurasia i/by A.M.Saraogi for Respondent No.2 --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH AND V.R.KINGAONKAR,JJ. DATED: 23rd MARCH, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this Appeal, the Appellant challenges the order dated 9th of March, 2005 passed by the learned 2 single Judge of this court in Chamber Summons No. 1277/2003. At the instance of the original Plaintiff, who is the decree holder, Shop no. 108, situated at Palm Spring Co-operative Housing Society, 1st floor, Swami Samartha Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053, was attached in execution of the decree. That attachment was objected to by the Appellant on the ground that he has purchased the property by the agreement dated 01.10.1999. The learned single Judge, by his said order dated 9th March, 2005, has held that this is a sham and bogus document and that the appellant has no interest in the premises and has accordingly rejected the chamber summons. The appellant, therefore, challenges that order. 2. It is common ground before us that there is no registered document by which the judgment debtor can be said to have transferred his title in the suit shop in favour of the appellant. Therefore, irrespective of the question whether the transaction or the document dated 01.10.1999 is sham and bogus or genuine, the conclusion reached by the learned single 3 Judge that when the property was attached, the appellant did not have any right in the premises, cannot be faulted. In our opinion, therefore, the order impugned cannot interfered with. However, in case the property is sold and there is any surplus, after satisfying the decree, the application of the appellant for being handed over the amount which he is supposed to have paid to the judgment debtor may be considered on merits by the appropriate court or authority without being influenced by the observations that are made in the order dated 9th of March, 2005. 3. Appeal is disposed of. 4. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant it is directed that the interim order which is in operation, will be continued to operate further for a period of four weeks from today. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)