Bombay High Court
Ishwarsingh Gangasingh Chowhan vs Kirit Prabhulal Kapadia on 29 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:4749
8-IA-3301-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3301 OF 2021
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 636 OF 2013
Ishwarsingh Gangasingh Chowhan and Ors. ...Applicants/
Intervenors
In the matter between:
SNEHA
Kirit Prabhulal Kapadia (since deceased)
NITIN Kanchan Prabhulal Kapadia (Deleted)
CHAVAN ...Ori. Applicant
Digitally signed
by SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
Versus
Date: 2026.01.30
15:35:19 +0530 Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan ...Respondent
****
Mr. Joel D'Souza for the Applicant/Intervenors.
Mr. Vivek Kantawala a/w Amey Patil, Mr. Manav Kantawala and Jash
Vyas i/b M/s. Vivek Kantawala and Co. for the original Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kamble for Original Applicant.
Mrs. Nandini Deshpande, 1st Assistant to Court Receiver present.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 29th JANUARY 2026 P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application by third parties seeking to intervene in the above Civil Revision Application ('CRA' for short).
3. Inviting attention of the Court to averments in the application, learned counsel Mr. D'Souza that the Applicants submitted as under. 3.1. That the Applicants are owners of the suit premises Room No. A- 28 for which the Respondent in CRA has filed the subject matter suit in Sneha Chavan 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:21:45 ::: 8-IA-3301-2021.doc alleged capacity as owners. That the Applicants are owners of suit premises to the exclusion of Respondent in CRA.
3.2. That the dispute amongst co-owners of the suit building was subject matter in a partition suit (Suit No. 68/1972) in the District Court at Mainpuri, U.P. which has reached finality. That therefore the Respondent in CRA has no right to prosecute the eviction proceedings against the tenants who are actually tenants of the Applicants. 3.3 That the Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit building for the purpose of partition by metes and bounds and survey has been conducted and Report along with sketch/plan is on record. 3.4. That under decree in the said suit No. 68/1972 suit building has been partitioned where 2 portions have been marked with different colours. That the decree passed in the partition suit was upheld by the High Court at Allahabad under order dated 14.12.2012. That this order was challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein by order dated 15.11.2016 in SLP(C) No. 19626/2013, the order of Allahabad High Court is confirmed.
3.5 That after dismissal of the SLP, Execution application No. 1/2019 has been filed before the District Court at Mainpuri, seeking execution of the partition decree and same is pending as on date. That during pendency of the partition proceedings, the present Respondent in CRA, in his alleged capacity as co-owner, has filed the subject matter suit for eviction of Revision Applicant / tenant which dispute is now pending in the above Civil Revision Application.
3.6 That decree of partition has become final and binding on the parties and since under the said partition decree the suit premises are allotted to the share of present Applicants, the Respondent in CRA cannot be considered as landlord to continue the eviction proceedings.Sneha Chavan 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:21:45 :::
8-IA-3301-2021.doc
4. On the other hand, Mr. Kantawala, learned counsel for the Respondent in CRA, submitted that though the partition decree has attained finality, it has not yet been effected by metes and bounds and it is pending in the aforesaid execution application. He submitted that in any case, the outcome of the eviction proceedings will be subject to final outcome of the execution proceedings.
5. Dispute of partition between Applicants and Respondent in CRA has already attained finality up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The remit of the present CRA is limited to the dispute between the landlord and tenant. This Court is not exercising any jurisdiction to entertain dispute between co-owners. Therefore it is not necessary to enter into such dispute between co-owners, which is admittedly pending at the stage of execution.
6. So far as the prayer of intervention is concerned, suffice it to record and observe that the outcome of the present CRA between the Respondent in CRA and the concerned tenant in respect of suit premises Room No. A-28 shall remain subject to final outcome of the Execution Application No. 1 of 2019 before the District Court at Mainpuri, U.P. between the present Applicants - Ishwarsingh Gangasingh Chowhan and 6 others and Respondent in CRA - Mr. Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan.
7. Interim Application is disposed of in above terms.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Sneha Chavan 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:21:45 :::