:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7021 OF 2006 Mr. Tarachand Narayandas Bajaj Proprietor of Ganesh Auto Centre ..Petitioner Vs. Shyam Gyaniram Agarwal and ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel with Mr. Siddharth Karpe i/by M/s. Y.K.S. Legal for petitioner. Mr. B.S. Bhogal with Mr. Pramod Patil for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 26, 2007. Date : April 26, 2007. Date : April 26, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sakhare the learned Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Y.K. S. Legal for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court at Pune on 2/9/2006 below Exhs.1, 14 and 21 in Regular Darkhast No. 64 of 2006 has been challenged. 2. Regular Civil Suit No. 856 of 1997 was filed by the present respondents as the landlords against :2: M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, who were the tenants over the suit premises. The suit came to be decreed ex parte on 16/6/2004. Regular Darkhast No. 64 of 2006 was filed for execution of the decree and on 24/4/2006 the execution warrant was issued. On the next day i.e. on 25/4/2006 the bailiff executed the decree and handed over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs. On 15/5/2006 the present petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rules 99 to 101 of C.P.C. and claimed to be an obstructionists. In the said application the following reliefs were prayed for:- (a) that the Decree holders may kindly be directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises and petrol pump, to the applicant, immediately; (b) that the Decree holders may kindly be directed to deliver possession of the articles to the Applicant, which have been unauthorisedly and illegally delivered tot he Decree Holders by the bailiff of the court on :3: 25th April, 2006, while making Panchanama and which articles have ben shown in the list of articles attached to the said Panchanama, immediately. 3. The decree holders filed their reply to the application and opposed the same. They pointed out that RCS No. 232 of 2006 was filed by the obstructionists against the decree holders and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. An application at Exh.5 filed in the said suit for injunction was rejected and, therefore, Misc. Civil Appeal No. 161 of 2006 was filed before the District Court at Pune. The said appeal was dismissed on 19/6/2006. It was then submitted that there was nothing on record to hold that the obstructionists was a representative or a sub-tenant of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 4. Mr. Sakhare the learned Senior Counsel referred to the plaint of the suit decided ex parte and pointed out that the suit property was described to be a room admeasuring 18 x 8 ft. and submitted :4: that the bailiff executed the decree in respect of the entire premises, including the open land appurtenant to the suit room and the petrol pump which has been installed in the said open plot. 5. The basic question that arises for consideration is the locus of the present petitioner, either as an obstructionists or a representative. Section 47 of C.P.C. clearly speaks of a representative in case of third party who is not before the court when the decree was passed. It was contended that the petitioner claiming to be a proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Auto Centre came to be appointed as a dealer by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and to that effect an agreement was entered between the parties was placed before the executing court as well as before this court and the said document does not speak anything about the suit premises having been handed over to the petitioner either as a sub-tenant or as a representative of M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. so as to carry out the dealership allotted to the petitioner from the suit premises. There is no material even to :5: prima facie hold that the petitioner is the representative of the M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and, therefore, he cannot invoke Section 47 of C.P.C. at least as at present to pray for the reliefs set out in the application submitted in RD No.64 of 2006. It is for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. even otherwise either to challenge the decree or support the case of the petitioner as its representative. The said Corporation which is an undertaking of the Government of India has done nothing, except writing some letters to the Police Commissioner at Pune. 6. Under these circumstances, the challenge raised by the petitioner to the impugned order cannot be entertained and hence this petition is rejected summarily. 7. Mr. Sakhare the learned Senior Counsel submitted an oral application to continue the status quo order passed earlier for some weeks. Oral application is allowed and the order of status quo passed by this court will continue for further period :6: of four weeks. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)