1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1217 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1385 OF 1984 Mrs.Piloo Fali Bomanjee & Ors. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Formac Engineering Limited. ...Defendant. And The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay. ...Respondent. .... Mr.Mustafa Doctor with Ms.Kirtida Chandarana i/b.Mahernosh Humranwala for the Plaintiff. Mr. M.P.S. Rao with Ms.Savita Sadanand and Mr.Prasanna S.Tare i/b. Vigil Juris for the Defendant. Mr.Toraskar, representative of the Court Receiver present. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. August 31, 2009. P.C. The suit has been instituted for possession in 1984 on the basis that the First Defendant has trespassed on an area admeasuring 4402 sq.ft. on the South Wing, First Floor, Bharthania Industrial Estate, Kanjurmarg. An ad-interim order was passed in the suit on 2 27th June 1984 in pursuance of which the Court Receiver came to be appointed as Receiver. An amount of Rs.11,005/- was fixed as compensation and the First Defendant was appointed as agent of the Receiver. The suit was dismissed in default on 21st July 2005. A Notice of Motion was taken out for restoration of the suit on 27th July 2006. The Notice of Motion was dismissed by a Learned Single Judge, but in appeal the Motion came to be restored for hearing and eventually, by an order dated 23rd September 2008, the Notice of Motion was allowed. However, the Plaintiffs were granted liberty to take out a fresh Motion for interim relief. On 30th September 2008 parties agreed to refer their disputes to mediation and by consent, the interim order dated 27th June 1984 was restored. The mediation failed. The Court Receiver was moved by the Plaintiffs for enhancement of the royalty sometime in March 2009. The Court Receiver has passed an order on 18th July 2009 recording that almost 25 years have passed since the royalty was fixed. At this stage, all that the Receiver has directed is that the Plaintiff should deposit an 3 amount of Rs.20,000/- for the appointment of the valuer and, after the valuation report is received, a report would be placed by the Court Receiver before the Court seeking direction on the enhancement of royalty. 2. The direction of the Court Receiver contained in the order dated 18th July 2009 has been challenged in the Chamber Summons which is taken out by the Defendants. At this stage, the Court Receiver has neither determined whether the royalty should be enhanced nor, if it should be so enhanced, has the quantum of royalty been re-determined. All that the order of the Court Receiver does is to appoint a valuer. The Plaintiffs have been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the fees of the valuer and the Plaintiffs have no objection in that regard. The amount has been deposited. The Court Receiver has also clarified that he would be seeking necessary directions from the Court before the royalty can be enhanced. The question as to whether the royalty should be 4 enhanced are all the matters which will fall for determination of the Court in the event that the Court Receiver submitts a report. In that view of the matter, the apprehension of the Defendants is without any basis or foundation. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Defendants submitted that the trial has already commenced and there is no warrant for enhancing the royalty at this stage. All the submissions which the Defendants have to oppose the enhancement of royalty would, it is needless to add, be considered when the report of the Receiver is taken up. In the circumstances, there is no warrant for interference with the order passed by the Receiver on 18th July 2009. The Chamber Summons is accordingly dismissed. .....