1 srk app-L-27-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODGING) NO.27 OF 2011 Miss Swati Madhukar Kajrolkar, legal heirs and successors of Madhukar N. Kajrolkar and another. ... Appellants Versus Anant Narayan Kajrolkar and another. ... Respondents Mr. Shailesh Shah with Mr. Yashodhan V. Divekar i/by M/s. Divekar & Co. for the appellants. Mr. Phiroze Colabawala with Mr. Sachin Kudalkar i/by M/s. Madekar & Co. for respondent No.1. Ms. Rubia Taneja with Ms. Shama Taneja for respondent No.2. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. Monday, January 31, 2011 P .C. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th December, 2010 of the learned trial Judge in Execution Application (L) No.46 of 2009 in Suit No.3279 of 1987. 2. The appellants-original defendants and respondent No.1-original plaintiff are the co-owners of the flat in respondent No.2 society-Anand Vihar Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Khar Mumbai (the said flat). 3. The appellants are the daughters of Madhukar Narayan Kajrolkar who was the brother of respondent No.1-Anant Narayan Kajrolkar. Since the parties agreed to sell the said flat, a public auction was held. The appellants were also allowed to bid. Since the bid of the appellants of Rs. 4 crores was the highest, the learned trial Judge passed an order accepting the appellants' 2 srk app-L-27-11.sxw bid. However, the appellants were directed by the learned trial Judge to deposit 50% of the consideration amount of Rs.4 crores i.e. Rs. 2 crores to show their bonafides. Since the respondent No. 2 society suggested that the appellants will have to obtain certificate from the Social Welfare Department, the learned trial Judge further directed that after the permission is obtained from the Social Welfare Department, proper documentation can be done between the plaintiffs and the present appellants. 4. The defendants-sisters are in appeal against the above order on two grounds: (i) when the Social Welfare Department has not yet granted the certificate, the appellants ought not to have been directed to deposit Rs.2 crores, (ii) it is not necessary to get the certificate from the Social Welfare Department, when the flat is being taken over by the heirs of one of the two co- owners, and auction was held only to ascertain the market value of the flat. 5. While, prima facie, we find some substance in the second argument, since the Social Welfare Department is not a party to these proceedings, we do not express any final opinion, but make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to raise this contention before respondent No.2 Society and the Social Welfare Department, and to file appropriate legal proceedings, if it becomes necessary to do so. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that some longer time may be granted for depositing the amount. In view thereof, we extend the time for depositing Rs.1 crore upto 7th February, 2011 and for the balance Rs. 1 crore, upto 21st February, 2011. It 3 srk app-L-27-11.sxw is clarified that in case of default, the order of the learned trial Judge shall operate. 7. Subject to the above extension and clarifications, the appeal is disposed of as dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.