:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.804 OF 2000 Smt.M.B.Sogaonkar .. Plaintiff Vs. Smt.Sunita R.Rajput & Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.J.S.Kini for the plaintiff. Ms.Deepali Patil for A.A.Garge for defenant no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2008. ORAL ORDER: ORAL ORDER: ORAL ORDER: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This suit is filed by the plaintiff mainly for the following reliefs: "(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit premises i.e Shop No.25, C Wing, Sagar Park, Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400 086. (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the alleged documents of Agreement of Sale and Power of Attorney being Exhibit "J" and Exhibit "K" hereto are forged documents and being illegal are null and void documents and not binding of the Plaintiff. (c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a permanent order and injunction restraining the Defendants their servants, agents or anybody else on behalf of the Defendants from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit premises i.e. Shop No.25, C Wing, Sagar Park, Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400 086." . There does not appear to be a dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. A leave and licence agreement was executed in favour of :2: :2: :2: defendant nos.1 and 2 by the plaintiff on 14.12.1997 and the possession of suit premises was handed over to them for a period of eleven months. During this period, it is stated by the plaintiff, that defendant nos.1 and 2 represented to defendant no.3 that they have entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff and on the basis thereof they executed another leave and licence agreement in favour of defendant no.3. It is against this backdrop the plaintiff has made the aforesaid prayers in the suit. 3. Defendant no.3 seems to have lost interest in the suit after the order dated 24th July, 2000 in motion no.1892 of 2000. It appears, during pendency of the suit, notice of motion No.1892 of 2000 was taken out by the plaintiff. While disposing of the said notice of motion by order dated 24.7.2000 in terms of prayer clause (a), the statement of learned counsel for defendant no.3 was recorded that he is not interested in the agency agreement and in view thereof the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit premises as agent of the court receiver. The appointment of the court receiver continues till this date and the plaintiff is in possession of the premises as agent of the court receiver. Learned counsel for defendant no.3 submits that she has instructions not to contest the suit. Insofar as :3: :3: :3: defendant nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they also seem to have lost interest in the proceedings and hence they have consistently remained absent before this court. 4. The plaintiff has filed an affidavit of evidence and has also placed all the original documents on record. I perused the plaint, the affidavit of evidence and the documents placed on record by the plaintiff. All the statements made in the plaint as well as in the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief have remained uncontroverted. The documents produced on record by the plaintiff in support of his suit claim stand admitted. In the result the suit deserves to be decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). Order accordingly. 5. At this stage Ms.Patil, learned counsel for defendant no.3 submits that defendant no.3 may be allowed to remove his belongings, if any, from the suit premises. Mr.Kini, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that this court had granted such permission to defendant no.3 and, accordingly, defendant no.3 has already removed his belongings. He, however, submits that if there are any belongings of defendant no.3 still lying in the suit premises he :4: :4: :4: will not have any objection for defendant no.3 to remove them within a period of two weeks from today. Mr.Patil for defendant no.3 states that defendant no.3 shall remove his belongings, if any, within two weeks from today. The statements of learned counsel for the parties are accepted. 6. In view of the decree, appointment of the court receiver shall stand cancelled subject to payment of royalty/charges/expenses/costs, if any, to be made by the plaintiff to the court receiver within four weeks from today. On such payment, if any, being made the court receiver shall stand discharged. The original documents, if any, filed by the plaintiff and defendants in the proceedings are allowed to be withdrawn as per rules. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) :5: :5: :5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE SUIT NO.804 OF 2000 Date of Decision: 4th April, 2008 For approval and signature: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice : D.B. BHOSALE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice : D.B. BHOSALE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice : D.B. BHOSALE 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judges? 6. Whether the case involves an important question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Aurangabad & Goa Offices?