SANJAY HARISHCHANDRA VANARASE Vs. MARATHA PRAKASHAN PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three first appeals as arising out of a common judgment and decree passed in Short Causes Suit no. 3565 o1965 by the Judge, City Civil Court, bombay, whereby a suit filed by the original plaintiff/appellant in First Appeal No. 328 of 2003 and first Appeal No. 409 of 1987 and the respondent in First Appeal No. 408 of 1987 was dismissed. The First Appeal No. 408 of 1987 has been preferred by original defendant/ obstructionist No. 2 against the original plaintiff in Short Cause Suit Nos. 1068 of 1966 and 1089 of 1966 in the City Civil Court at Bombay. One Maratha Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. filed suit against Sanjay Harishchandra Vanarase, who is plaintiff No. 2 in Short Cause Suit No. 3565 of 1965. It be noted here the respondents in first Appeal No. 408 of 1987 were the plaintiffs in Short Causes Suit Nos. 1088 of 1996 and 1089 of 1966. The facts and circumstances and parties are inter linked and connected in all these three suits and as consented, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) THE common dates and events in all these three proceedings are as under : the suit property is Shop No. 7 situated at House No. 21/33, Mughbhat Lane, Mumbai- 400 004. The appellant Sanjay Vanarase in first Appeal No. 408 of 1987 was the original defendant in Suit No. 1088 of 1966. In First appeal No. 409 of 1987 Shankar who was defendant in Suit No. 1089 of 1966 filed by the respondent Maratha Prakashan Private Limited in these two appeals. Both these appellants are occupying the respective portion of Shop no. 7 in question.

(3.) ORIGINAL defendant Nos. 1 and 2/ landlord/respondent Nos. 1a and 1b in First appeal No. 328 of 2003, instituted R. A. E. Suit no. 4728 of 1961 in the Small Causes Court at mumbai against one Manohar Gangaram more, who was their tenant. On 22nd february, 1964 an ex-parte decree was obtained by the landlord against said Manohar. When the landlord tried to execute the said decree, appellants Shankar (Obstructionist no. 1) and Sanjay (Obstructionist No. 2)obstructed the said execution. The landlord, therefore, took out Obstructionist Notice bearing No. 255 of 1964. The appellants, therefore, engaged Mr. Belosay, advocate/respondent no. 2/original defendant No. 2 in suit No. 3565 of 1965, filed by Obstructionist nos. 1 and 2. The said advocate Mr. Belosay expired and therefore now his legal representatives respondent Nos. 2a to 2nd are on the record.