Bombay High Court
SANJAY PRAKASH INDALKARversusARVIND JAMNADAS SHAH AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The trial court correctly refused to order the handover of the articles because the petitioner failed to produce evidence of ownership, and the bailiff’s report alone is insufficient.
Summary
The petitioner, a third‑party intervenor, sought to have articles seized during the execution of an eviction decree handed over to him, claiming they belonged to him based on a bailiff’s report. The trial court rejected his application, holding that he had not produced any evidence of ownership and that the earlier application for restoration of possession had been dismissed without challenge. The petitioner argued that the presence of his staff, identified by the bailiff, proved ownership of the articles. The court found that the bailiff’s report alone was insufficient to establish ownership and that the petitioner was not entitled to relief after the eviction decree was executed. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition and declared the pending civil application infructuous, finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s discretionary exercise under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Issues considered
- Whether a third‑party petitioner is entitled to the handover of articles seized during execution of an eviction decree in the absence of proof of ownership.
- Whether a bailiff’s report indicating the presence of the petitioner’s staff constitutes sufficient evidence of ownership.
- Whether the trial court’s refusal to grant relief was a mis‑exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227.
Subjects
- eviction decree
- possession
- third‑party rights
- bailiff report
- ownership evidence
- discretionary jurisdiction
- Article 227
- civil application
- writ petition
Judgment
13-WP-7631-2017.docx
rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7631 OF 2017
Sanjay Prakash Indalkar … Petitioner
Vs.
Arvind Jamnadas Shah … Respondents
(since deceased) through LRs and Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7631 OF 2017
Arvind Jamnadas Shah
(since deceased) through LRs and Others... Applicants
In the matter between
Sanjay Prakash Indalkar … Petitioner
Vs.
Arvind Jamnadas Shah … Respondents
(since deceased) through LRs and Others
Mr. J. S. Kini a/w. Mr. Aum Kini and Mr.Parth Kini i/b. Mr.
Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is preferred by the third party –
Digitally signed
intervenor who had objected to the decree holders
by
RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI
RAMESH
RAMESH PILLAI
PILLAI Date: 1/4
2026.10.01
16:29:54 +0530
13-WP-7631-2017.docx
application for destroying articles found in the premises at
the time of execution of the eviction decree. The petitioner
had initially filed an application seeking stay to the execution
and for restoration of the possession on the ground that he
had filed a declaratory suit that he is a protected tenant of the
suit premises. The said application was rejected on 11 th April
2017. Admittedly, the said order was never challenged by the
petitioner.
2. In the application filed by the landlord to destroy the
articles, the petitioner applied for handing over the articles to
the petitioner. The trial court has rejected the application on
the ground that the petitioner was unable to show that the
articles belonged to him. The application for restoration of
possession was also dismissed. Hence, the trial court held
that in the absence of any evidence to show that the articles
belonged to the third party, he would not be entitled to any
relief. Hence, the decree holders application was allowed to
destroy the articles.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
bailiffs report to point out that the articles belonged to him.
He submits that the bailiffs report would indicate that the
2/4
13-WP-7631-2017.docx
articles belonged to the petitioner. He relies upon the bailiff
report to show that when the bailiff reached the suit premises
one Shri Gajanan Jitas Jagtap was found in the premises
who informed that he was staff of the petitioner who was
occupying the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner
therefore submits that the very fact that the petitioner’s staff
was found in the premises would show that the articles
belonged to the petitioner.
4. The trial court has rejected the petitioner’s contention
for receiving articles mainly on the ground that his earlier
application seeking restoration of possession on the ground
that he was occupying premises was dismissed and never
challenged by the petitioners. Once the eviction decree was
executed and the possession was recovered in view of the
eviction decree against the tenant the petitioner would not be
entitled to seek any relief in the absence of any evidence to
show that the articles belonged to him. Mere bailiff report
cannot be considered as proof that the petitioner is
concerned with the suit premises or the articles lying in the
suit premises at the time of execution of the eviction decree.
5. The trial court has therefore rightly refused to handover
3/4
13-WP-7631-2017.docx
the articles to the petitioner in the absence of any supporting
evidence.
6. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasons
recorded in the impugned order warranting any interference
in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
7. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
8. Pending civil application is disposed of as infructuous.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
4/4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.