1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 186 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 186 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 186 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATIONS NOS.350/2007 & 258/2007 Ashok Hassanand Bhatia .. Petitioner (Org. Plaintiff) Versus Smt. Asha Menghraj Gehi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar,Senior Counsel, a/w Mr.N.P.Shimpi,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.V.Walawalkar,Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. A.Z.Mokhatar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Merlyn Monteiro, Advocate, for respondent No.1 CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 23rd January, 2008. DATE : 23rd January, 2008. DATE : 23rd January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to delete respondent NO.4, who is father of the petitioner at his own risk. Respondent No.4 is allowed to be 2 deleted. Amendment be effected immediately. 3. After some discussion at the Bar, and in view of the fact that the appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court in the appeal filed by respondents Nos.1 to 4 (original defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiff/present petitioner) has held that the suit was not tenable and in view of the obstruction to the execution decree under Order XXI of the C.P.C., the parties now agree that the present Revision Application may be disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The respondents Nos. 1 to 3, who are the decree holders, shall file execution proceedings in RAE Suit No.467/1127 of 1993 against the judgment debtor and in view of the present petitioner having declared that he would raise obstructions in the said execution, the said obstructions are noted by this Court. The decree holders shall file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the C.P.C. in the execution proceedings about the obstruction being raised by the present petitioner. Notice of such application shall be served on the present petitioner and thereafter his objection shall be heard by the executing Court. 3 (ii) To avoid repetition of recording of evidence again, the evidence which is already led by the concerned parties in RAE Suit No.916 of 1994 shall be read as evidence in the said obstruction proceedings and if the parties seek permission to lead some further evidence, they shall be permitted. (iii) Learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3/decree holders makes a statement on instructions from the respondent no.1 that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 shall not evict the present petitioner till the obstruction proceedings are disposed of. (iv) The present petitioner shall not create third party interest in the disputed property. (v) All contentions of the parties are left open. 4. The Revisional Application stands disposed of with the above directions. 5. In view of the disposal of the Revision Application, C.A.No.350 of 2007 & C.A. No.258/2007 do not survive and stand disposed of. 4 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)