1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1610 OF 2007 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.227 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1400 OF 2007 Thomas Press (India) Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. English Edition Publishers and Distributors (I) Pvt. Ltd. ..Defendant. And Dhirendra Ramniklal Doshi ..Applicant. ..... None for the Plaintiff. Mr. P.R. Gyani i/b M/s. Pandya Gandhi & Co. for the Applicant. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 18th August, 2009. P.C. : The Chamber Summons has been taken out for raising the attachment levied in respect of the premises comprised in Unit No.10 of Building No. 5 at Mahalaxmi Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Limited, Chunabhatti, Mumbai. The premises are stated to be wrongly described in the warrant of attachment. A decree in a summary suit 2 under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the present case was passed on 19th September, 2006. The warrant of attachment was issued on 26th July, 2007 and attachment was levied in respect of the premises in question on 13th September, 2007. The Chamber Summons for raising the attachment has been taken out on 28th September, 2007. In support of the Chamber Summons, the case of the Applicant is that an auction sale was conducted in October 2006 by the Uco Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. The premises were purchased by the Applicant at and for a consideration of Rs.24 lacs. In pursuance thereof, a sale certificate was initially issued on 16th November, 2006 acknowledging receipt of the sale price and handing over of possession to the Applicant. A registered sale certificate was issued on 27th September, 2006. On the strength of the sale certificate, the name of the Applicant has been entered in the share certificate of the co-operative society on 29th May, 2009. From the material on the record it is abundantly clear that the property comprised in Unit No.10 did not belong to the 3 Defendant. The property was sold by the Uco Bank in an auction sale under the Securitization Act and has been purchased for valuable consideration by the Applicant. In the reply that has been filed by the decree holder it has been stated in paragraph 4 that when the attachment was levied, the Defendants were found to be in possession of the premises and that the Applicants have colluded with the original Defendant to the suit. In the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons, the Applicant has disclosed the fact that after the purchase of the premises, the Applicant temporarily allowed the Defendant to use the premises in order to make alternate arrangement but, that the Applicant continued to be in jural possession of the premises. That apart, once the material on the record shows that the Applicant is the owner of the premises pursuant to an action sale conducted under the Securitization Act, the attachment that has been levied would have to be raised. The Chamber Summons is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). *****