- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1855 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.1855 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.1855 OF 2006 Tarulata Kantaria and others ...Petitioners vs. Citi Bank N.A. and others ...Respondents Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/b M/s.Dhruva & Co. for the Petitioners Mr.J.S.Saluja for Respondent No.1 Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa,A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 16,2006. : OCTOBER 16,2006. : OCTOBER 16,2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. When this Petition was on board on 5th September 2006, following order is passed : 1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the symbolic possession of the immovable property in question is already handed over to the first Respondent-Bank. In view of this statement, issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 10th October 2006. In addition to service through Court the Advocate for the Petitioners is directed to serve private notice to the Respondents and file Affidavit of service before the returnable date. 2. Till 11th October 2006 actual physical possession - 2 - of the property subject matter of the impugned order shall not be taken. 2. On 10th October 2006, the learned Counsel for the first Respondent produced on record possession receipt dated 5th August 2006 which records that the Petitioners had already handed over the physical possession of the flat subject matter of this Petition to the first Respondent in presence of of the Deputy Registrar of Esplanade Court, Mumbai. The said fact is not disputed by the Advocate for the Petitioners today. 3. It is obvious that the Petitioners did not disclose the correct facts to the Counsel appearing for the Petitioners when the Petition came up on board on 5th September 2006. It is obvious that when the Petition came up before this Court on 5th September 2006, the Petitioners instructed their Counsel to make a statement which is toally incorrect. In view of this position, this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not entertained and the same is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE