IMPORTANT POINT
The execution of a decree is limited to the specific property described in the plaint; parties cannot seek possession of additional properties not included in the original decree.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Applicants have filed this Revision Application challenging the order dated 17 March 2023 passed by the Executing Court rejecting their applications at Exhibits-83 and 85 filed for issuance of possession warrant for remaining area of the suit premises. With rejection of applications for issuance of fresh possession warrants, the Executing Court has disposed of Execution Application No. 264/2010 holding that the decree in L.E. & C. Suit No. 499/545 of 1987 is fully satisfied.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 1 is an Association of Persons and has been established as a Club in/or about 1717. Petitioner-Club is a licensee in respect of several pieces and portions of land situated at Tulshiwadi, Tardeo, Mumbai by virtue of Indentures of Lease dated 26 June 1923, 17 January 1933, 30 June 1937 and 27 December 1940 etc. According to Petitioner-Club, the land described as Plot No. A in the plan annexed to the Indenture of Lease dated 30 June 1937 is also demised in its favour. After formation of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Petitioner-Club has become the lessee of the Municipal Corporation. It claims that the land demised to at southernmost corner of Plot No. A was used by it for putting up small huts for accommodating some of the employees as servant quarters. That original Defendant was employed to work as Kamal in the Club in the year 1958, who was promoted to the post of Head Attendant of the Club’s swimming pool and on account of the nature of duties, he was allotted to occupy one of the huts in the said servant quarters located on southernmost corner of Plot No. A demarcated in green shading. Original Defendant resigned from services of the Club on 20 January 1986 w.e.f. 1 February 1986 but did not vacate the hut in his occupation. Plaintiff-Club accordingly filed L. E. & C. Suit No. 499/545 of 1987 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai seeking ejectment of the Defendant who are legal heirs of the original employee of the Club. In the Plaint, suit premises were described as a hut in the servant quarters situated in southernmost corner of Plot-A demarcated in green shading on plan attached as Exhibit-A to the plaint.

3. Original Defendant/his heirs filed their Written Statement raising objection about lack of authority of Plaintiff’s Trustees to file the suit without sanction from the members of the Club. They claimed that the suit premises were erroneously described and that the premises in their possession in fact comprised of several pucca structures comprising Dutta Mandir, durbar place, dhuni place, two rooms including a tea stall, etc. which were allegedly constructed by the original Defendant, who had renounced the worldly affairs and had become a Sanyasi. It was claimed that construction of the temple was with approval of the then trustees of the Club. They also questioned jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to entertain the suit. The Small Causes Court proceeded to dismiss the suit by judgment and decree dated 29 July 2004. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Plaintiffs filed Appeal No. 798/2004 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Appeal came to be partly allowed by judgment and decree dated 30 November 2009. The suit was partly decreed and Defendants were directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff in addition to compensation of Rs.5700/- as well direction to conduct enquiry into mesne profits. Defendants filed Civil Revision Application No. 101/2010 challenging the eviction decree passed by the Appellate Court. The Revision Application was however dismissed by the Single Judge of this Court on 5 April 2010.

4. In the above background, Plaintiff filed Execution Application No. 264/2010 before the Small Causes Court for execution of the decree of the Appellate Court dated 30 November 2009. The Executing Court issued possession warrant by order dated 24 January