1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.117 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 174 OF 2008 Damayanti Hariram ........Applicant/Orig.Defendant Verus Vasant Govinji Kotak & Ors. ........Respondents AND Mr.Nalin Dwarkanath Modi ........Respondent AND Jagdish H. Chandan & Ors. .........Applicants ======== Mr.A.M.Saraogi, adv.for the applicant. Ms.Reema Thakkar i/by. M/s.Law Charter, adv.for respondents. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. The applicants are the heirs and legal representatives of Damayanti, revision-applicant herein. By this Civil Application, they seek to bring themselves on record in the place of deceased Damayanti. The application is opposed by the respondents. 2. The respondents are the plaintiffs in Short Cause Suit No. 617 of 1985 2 filed against Damayanti and one Lakshmibai under Section 6 of Specific Reliefs Act, alleging that both on 21st December, 1984, broke open the lock of Room no. 26 and forcibly dispossessed the respondents therefrom. During the pendency of the suit, Lakshmibai died and the suit came to be prosecuted against Damayanti alone. By the judgment and Decree dated 27th November, 2006 the suit was decreed with costs directing Damayanti to hand over possession of the suit room to the respondents within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. Damayanti, then preferred the instant Civil Revision Application against the order. 3. The Civil Application is opposed by the respondents contending that the since the suit filed was under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act the cause of action therein was personally against Damayanti. The right of Damayanti to challenge the decree was available to Damayanti in person and the same does not survive for the heirs and legal representatives. They also contend that the claim made by the applicants that at the time of death of Damayanti, they had been residing with her in the suit premises, is false. In the written statement filed by Damayanti, it has been avered that her childrens have been residing elsewhere at the premises described in the Written Statement. Ms.Thakkar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Damayanti had already been guilty of contempt of this court on account of non-compliance of the order dated 13th August, 1996 by which she was directed to deposit Rs.100/- per month with 3 the Court Receiver for the purpose of payment to the respondents as she was occupying the premises, as an agent of the Court Receiver. Damayanti had failed to deposit the amount, since the year 1991. 4. Since the suit filed by the respondents was under Section 6 of Specific Reliefs Act for action against wrongful and forcible dispossession, the same was personally against Damayanti. That suit was decreed personally against Damayanti. In these circumstances, her heirs and legal representatives cannot continue the Civil Revision Application after her death. The right to challenge the decree was available to Damayanti in person and it does not survive on her death. She was also occupying the premises as an agent of the Court Receiver. Further, the perusal of the written statement shows that none of the applicants were residing in the suit premises. The claim of residence made by them in the Civil Application is ex-facie incorrect. In these circumstances, the Civil Application taken out by the applicants is dismissed. In view of death of Damayanti, the Civil Revision Application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed off. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J] 4