Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5103   OF 2006

MARUTI RAGHUNATH KADAM (D) BY LRS.               Appellant(s)

                  VERSUS

CHELLARAM JETHANAND MADHRANI & ORS.              Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel in support  

of  this  appeal  and  Mr.  Navare,  learned  counsel  

appearing for the respondents.  

The appellant had filed a suit for eviction  

of  the  licencee  in  the  Court  of  Small  Causes  in  

Mumbai. After obtaining a decree when the appellant  

went for execution of the decree, respondent Nos.1  

and  2,  who  were  found  in  possession  of  the  suit  

premises,  caused  obstruction,  and  therefore  an  

obstructionist  notice  was  taken  out.  That  

obstructionist notice was made absolute by the Small  

Causes Court but the High Court has taken the view  

that such a proceeding would not lie in the Court of

Page 2

2

Small Causes. That view has been overturned by this  

Court  in  Civil  Appeal  Nos.6726-6727  of  2013:  

Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & Ors. Vs. Manhabala Jeram  

Damodar & Anr., decided on 13th August, 2013. In view  

thereof,  the  High  Court  was  clearly  in  error  in  

taking the view that such a proceeding would not lie  

in the Court of Small Causes. Therefore, this appeal  

is  allowed  and  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  

passed by the High Court stands set aside.  We may  

record  that  the  appellants  have  already  taken  

possession  of  the  suit  premises  in  the  execution  

proceeding. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.  

..........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

.........................J  (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi; September 30, 2013.