1 38.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.38 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3663 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1344 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO.161 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3514 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2715 OF 2007 Deonar Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Limited ...Petitioner Versus Nand Kumar Anant Vaity & Ors. ..Respondents ...... Mr.Ponvel Nadarajan, C.A. of Petitioner present in-person. Mr.Simil Purohit with Mr.Samit Shukla i/b NDP & Partners for Respondent No.41. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- JULY 1, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Constituted Attorney of petitioner in-person. 2. Two-fold grievance has been made in this Review Petition. The first is that the factual position noted in our earlier order dated 22nd February, 2 38.11 2011 is incorrect. It is stated that the Court proceeded to answer the controversy on the assumption that the Receiver in possession taking over receipt, dated 8th December, 2003, has noted that formal possession of the suit property was taken over by him and not vacant possession thereof. We have no hesitation to hold that the fact that the possession receipt dated 8th December, 2003 refers to taking over formal possession is indisputable. That fact is also reiterated in possession receipt dated 10th November, 2008. In Paragraph No.2 of the said receipt, it is noted that as per the order dated 28th November, 2003 he (Receiver) had taken formal possession of the property on 4th December, 2003. 3. The argument of the petitioner, is that, vacant possession of the suit property was in fact taken on 20th August, 2005 which fact is noted in the document Exhibit 25 filed in the appeal proceedings vide letter dated 18th August, 2005. At the end of the said letter, noting has been made that on 20th August, 2005 at 3.00 p.m., the Court Receiver handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property by the Police Officer of Trombay Police Station through Govandi Police Chowky. We fail to understand as to how this noting would change the factual position stated in paragraph No.6 of our order under review. The fact remains that no possession receipt is 3 38.11 forthcoming which indicates that the vacant possession was taken by the Court Receiver in terms of order passed by the Cooperative Court from the occupants in the suit property. Accordingly, there is no substance in the first grievance made by the petitioner. 4. The second grievance is that the factual position noted in Paragraph No.6 of our order under review to the effect that it is not in dispute that only the Society and its members were party to the proceedings before the Cooperative Court and the Appellants/original Plaintiffs were not parties thereto. It is submitted that the appellant/original plaintiffs were parties in the Miscellaneous proceedings before the Cooperative Court in which adverse order came to be passed against the appellants which has been confirmed right up to the High Court. The fact remains that the appellants/original plaintiffs are not party respondents in the main proceedings. Thus, the observation made in Paragraph No.6 of the order under review will have to be understood in that context. 5. In any case, we are at a loss to know why the petitioner has been advised to file the present Review Petition as the operative order which has been passed by us on 22nd February, 2011 was only to clarify the interim 4 38.11 order which was passed by the earlier Bench. The interim order is one of directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the suit property as has been mentioned in the order dated 30th September, 2009 and it has been clarified that the parties to the suit and in the appeal shall not create third party rights or encumbrances in the suit property or use it in the manner for which it is presently used. 6. Taking any view of the matter, this Review Petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)