VIDHYADHAR MADHAV DAMLE, THR. CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, VIVEK MADHAV DAMLEversusSHOBHA KOLWADKAR AND ORS.

   2026:BHC-AS:11354

                                                                   5-CRA-144-2018.docx


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2018
Swapnil
                  Vidyadhar Mahav Damle, Thr.
                  Constituted Attorney, Vivek Madhav
                  Damle.                                    …     Applicant
                       Vs.
                  Shobha Kolwadkar and Ors.                 …     Respondents


                  Ms. Sheetal Malvankar for the applicant.
                                           CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                           DATE :      20th February 2026

                  ORDER :


                  1.      This civil revision application is filed by the original

                  plaintiff to challenge the order passed by the trial court

                  dismissing his suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,

                  1963.


                  2.      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial

                  court failed to consider the legal aspect regarding the plaintiff

                  being in possession of the suit property on the ground that

                  his right involved the power and control over the suit

                  property, even after he had shifted to U.S.A. in 1991. She

                  submits that the trial court failed to take into consideration

                  that the actual physical possession on the date of the filing of

                                                 1/5
                                                      5-CRA-144-2018.docx


the suit or on the date of the dispossession would not be the

only criteria to decide the suit under Section 6 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1963, as the applicant was always in a settled

possession and control over the suit property even after he

had shifted to U.S.A. She, therefore, submits that without

following the due process of law the defendants had no right

to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. To support

the allegations regarding illegal dispossession the plaintiff

examined his father as his power of attorney holder and thus,

despite    the    evidence      on    record   that   the   defendant

highhandedly took over the possession of the suit property

by breaking open the lock with the help of the police would

support the plaintiff’s contentions that he was illegally

dispossessed from the suit property.


3.     To support her submissions on the point of the

interpretation of the word ‘possession’ which would indicate

the plaintiff’s control over the suit property, she relies upon

the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Jaggi

and Anr. Vs. Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhury and Ors. 1.


4.     Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that

the plaintiff had relied upon the various other decisions on
1 AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1243

                                     2/5
                                                    5-CRA-144-2018.docx


the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to

support the plaintiff’s contentions on his control and

possession     over   the     suit     property   and   the   illegal

dispossession of the defendants. She submits that all the

decisions though referred to by the learned Judge in the

impugned judgment, has not considered the legal principle

that supports the plaintiff’s allegations. She, therefore,

submits that the civil revision application would require

interference by this court.


5.    I have perused the papers of the civil revision

application. There is no dispute that the plaintiff had occupied

the flat sometime in the year 1984 and he left India for U.S.A.

in the year 1992. The suit is filed on 28 th February 1997 on

the ground of illegal dispossession on 2 nd September 1996.

The suit is filed through the plaintiff’s father as his constituted

attorney. The trial court has referred to all the legal principles

relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff. Regarding the plaintiff’s

control over the suit property and his physical dispossession

without following due process of law is not supported by any

oral evidence by the plaintiff as he did not step into the

witness box. The only evidence led by the plaintiff is through



                                 3/5
                                                5-CRA-144-2018.docx


his father as his constituted attorney.


6.    The defendants had contended that the plaintiff had

permanently shifted to U.S.A., itself falsifies the plaintiff’s

case that he was in any lawful possession of the suit

property. The defendants contended that they opened the

suit flat based on another set of keys available with them and

thus, there was no illegal dispossession as alleged. The

learned trial court has considered the oral evidence on

record and the admissions given by the plaintiff’s witness that

he had no document to show that any tenancy rights were

created in favour of the plaintiff, as alleged in the suit to

contend that he was in lawful or settled possession of the suit

property and thus, the property was under his lawful control.


7.    All the relevant legal principles and the evidence is

exhaustively discussed by the trial court. After considering

the evidence on record, the trial court has recorded a positive

finding that the plaintiff was unable to prove his lawful

possession over the suit property. In the absence of any

evidence, to support that the plaintiff had any valid right to

occupy the suit property and he had any legal right and

control over the suit property, the legal principles relied upon


                               4/5
                                                 5-CRA-144-2018.docx


by the learned counsel for the applicant are of no assistance

to the applicant.


8.    In view of the admitted fact that the plaintiff was not in

physical possession of the suit property and he had already

left and was residing in U.S.A, the other findings recorded by

the trial court disbelieving the plaintiff’s contention of valid

possession, the legal principles relied upon by the learned

counsel for the applicant would not require any further

discussion in this civil revision application.


9.    I do not find any jurisdictional error or any other

manifest error in the impugned judgment to interfere with the

impugned judgment in exercise of the powers under Section

115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.


10.   The civil revision application is devoid of any merits.


11.   The civil revision application is dismissed.




                                            [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                                5/5