1 chs6-96.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No.6 of 1996 in Execution Application No.122 of 1995 in Award No.110 of 1990 The Jaybharat Credit & Investment Company Ltd. .. Claimant v/s. Rajeshwar Prasad Mishra & Another ..Respondent And Smt. Raksha R. Mishra ..Applicant Mr.Dilip Rai i/b. Aruna Singh for the Claimant Ms.Leena Temkar i/b. K.G.Parmar for the Applicant CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 15th November , 2010 P.C. : 1. The applicant has taken out this Chamber Summons for raising attachment in regard to flat No.4A, more particularly described in para 1 of the Chamber Summons. According to the applicant this flat is owned by her and in support of the said proposition has relied upon agreement dated 1.8.1976 between Mr.J Suryavanshi the seller and 2 chs6-96.sxw the applicant. The applicant has produced Share Certificate issued by the society, wherein the flat is situated and the said Share Certificate stands in the name of the present applicant. The other documents such as electricity bills, telephone bills are produced wherein the name of the present applicant is shown as the person enjoying the benefit of the electric supply as well as telephone connection. She has produced the bills raised by the society towards dues and the said bills stand in her name. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the attachment in regard to the flat in question has been illegally levied and the defendant no.1 Rajeshwar has no connection whatsoever with the flat in question and the attachment should be raised. Counsel for the defendant opposes the same by contending that the flat was purchased out of the funds of defendant no.1 and therefore the applicant is not the owner of the flat in question. 2. Evidence was ordered to be recorded. However, no such evidence has been recorded. 3. I have heard learned counsels on both sides. The applicant has been able to make out a case that she is the owner of the flat in question. Though the plaintiff alleged that the flat in question was purchased out of the assets of the defendant no.1, there is no material even 3 chs6-96.sxw prima facie to support such a contention. If this be so, attachment levied on flat in question is illegal and ought not to have been levied. If it was the claim of the plaintiff/claimant that the flat was owned by defendant no.1 which ofcourse is not correct it was his duty to produce before the court reasonable material that the flat though stands in the name of the applicant was purchased out of the funds of the defendant. Mere allegation is not sufficient. Hence the attachment will have to be raised. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER i) Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). ii) Attachment levied with regard to the flat described in prayer clause (a) is raised. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]