: 1 : nms-1851-11=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1851 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 1367 OF 2011 M/s. M.S. Shah Developers .. Plaintiff v/s. Smt. Sushila Kisan Ghandekar & Anr. .. Defendants ......... Mr. Shekhar Jagtap for the plaintiff in support of NMS Mr. V.T. Lulia for defendant no.1 Mr. Jitendra Pathade for defendant no.2 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. Learned advocate for the plaintiff applied for time to file rejoinder. Request to grant time to file rejoinder is rejected. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.2 by Agreement to Sale dated 18th December, 1993, agreed to sell, in favour of plaintiffs, ½ share in regard to the property bearing Survey No. 34, Hissa No.2, CST No.20 admeasuring about 478 : 2 : nms-1851-11=.sxw sq. yards equivalent to 400 sq. meters. The said document was not registered and, therefore, Deed of Confirmation was executed on 20th February, 2006. That Deed of Confirmation was registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance. The plaintiff has filed this suit for following reliefs. “(a) The Hon’ble Court may kindly allow this suit with costs; (b) The Hon’ble Court may kindly make separation of share and partition of the land situated at Village Tungave, Taluka, Kurla, in the Mumbai Suburban District, bearing Surey No.34, Hissa No.2 and also bearing C.T.S. Survey No.20 admeasuring about 400 sq.meters by metes and bounds and accordance with the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 as per the Agreement dated 18.12.1993”. 3. A reading of the said prayers would go to show that plaintiff expects that ½ share in the suit property i.e. to the extent of 200 sq. meters should be put in possession of the plaintiff. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff without seeking a final conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. If this be so, the plaintiff would not be able to seek division of the property, : 3 : nms-1851-11=.sxw admeasuring 400 sq. meters. 4. In my view, the plaintiff has not been able make a prima- facie case for grant of reliefs in the motion, which are in the nature of seeking appointment of a Commissioner. Prayer clause (b), if read, is directed against defendant no.2. In the course of hearing, learned advocate for the plaintiff admitted that defendant no.2 is supporting the interest of the plaintiff. If this be so, there is no question of granting relief against defendant no.2 in terms of prayer clause (b). Prayer clause (c) relates to appointment of a Court Receiver. Surely, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a case where this Court should appoint a Receiver in a suit where the plaintiff has no specific right in the suit property except the right to have a conveyance, if at all. In my view, for the aforesaid reasons, prayer clause (c) cannot be granted hence, notice of motion is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. Suit is adjourned to 6th September, 2011 for withdrawal. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)