1 cra1036.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1036 OF 2010 Kamal Pictures ...Applicant vs. Jehangir P. Lentin (since deceased) & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/b Mr.N.Dinker Rao for the applicant Ms Parimal Shroff with Himanshu Mahajan i/b M/s.Parimal & Shroff for the respondent nos.6(a) and 6(b) CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE :DECEMBER 20,2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The challenge is to the order dated 8th September 2010 passed by the executing Court by which a permission was granted to the Bailiff to take possession of the suit premises by dispossessing the person who will be found to be in possession. 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the revision applicant is that without following the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 50 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, a partner of the applicant has been dispossessed. 3 As of today, there is no grievance made by the said partner. Admittedly, the applicant is the defendant- Judgment Debtor and is bound by the decree for possession. Hence, at the instance of the revision applicant, no interference can be made with the impugned order. Revision application is rejected. JUDGE