: 1 : RPS-192-10=.sxw fUSJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.5 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2009 Shri Priyamedh Rushidev Shastri & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Shri Vijay Rushidev Shastri .. Respondent ......... Mr. S.B. Shetye for the petitioners Mr. M.M. Sathaye for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 15th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. The Review Petition was taken up for admission. Review Petition is admitted. Issue notice to the respondent. Respondent waives service forthwith. Review Petition is taken up for hearing. 2. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the portion of the order dated 20th April, 2009 passed in Second Appeal namely “no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order dated 8th December, : 2 : RPS-192-10=.sxw 2008 by District Judge-5, Nashik to the extend of clauses 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment”. He submitted that this will create an obstacle in the litigation which may be initiated by the present petitioners in the wake of subsequent portion of operative order starting from words “It is clarified............then prevailing”. 3. I have considered the point and noted operative part of order dated 20th April, 2009. I am inclined to observe that operative part of order dated 20th April, 2009 passed in the Second Appeal by me, starting from “it is clarified that if at all the appellants institute a suit for possession of the suit property, the said suit shall be considered on merits and any observation made by the learned District Judge in this impugned judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2008 shall not operate against the appellants. Both the parties are free to place their respective contentions before the learned Judge before whom the suit will be filed. All questions regarding the ownership of the property or questions regarding succeeding to the tenancy rights shall be considered in the light of the factual facts and legal position then prevailing” is clearly indicative of the mind of the Court that for the purposes of getting possession of the property in question from Mr. V. R. Shastri i.e. the respondent in this Review Petition, the petitioners will have to file substantive suit. All questions that may be raised by the : 3 : RPS-192-10=.sxw respective parties shall be determined in the said suit in accordance with the provisions of law. In view of this, there is no question of a permanent injunction running against the present petitioners from dispossessing respondent from the suit property. As and when the suit is filed, the suit will be entertained by the concerned Court in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. Needless to mention that since the present petitioners are required to institute a suit for possession of the property in question, there is no question of present petitioners dispossessing the present respondent in a high handed manner. Undoubtedly, the present petitioners will have to adopt appropriate proceedings for the purposes of dispossessing the respondent from the suit premises. With the aforesaid observations, Review Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)