gopi 1 wp.607-11 & n.m.2690-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.607 OF 2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2690 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2134 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.1680 OF 2011 Abdul Razak Sattar Chnawalla & Ors....Appellants V/s. Rockline Developers Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondents. Mr. Gaurang R. Joshi with Y.R.Shah for the Appellants. Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar and Shri T.D. Shai i/b. M/s. Lilani Shah & Co., for the Respondent. CORAM: MOHIT SHAH, C.J., AND MRS.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 14 September 2011. P.C. This Appeal is directed against the ad-interim order dated 25 August 2011 of the learned trial Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No.2134 of 2011 in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. By the impugned order the learned trial Judge has granted ad-interim relief appointing Court Receiver in respect of the suit property which is described in Annexure “B” to the plaint. The learned trial Judge has further directed that the Court Receiver shall have all powers under Order XL Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and asked the Court Receiver to take physical possession of the encroached property described in Exhibit “B” to the plaint. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that the learned trial Judge ought not to have appointed the Court Receiver at the gopi 2 wp.607-11 & n.m.2690-11 ad-interim stage when the Motion was yet to be decided. Reference is made to various documents in support of the contention that when the Deed of Conveyance was executed by the Appellants’ predecesor in title and even when the Supplementary Agreement was executed by the appellants, the correct area of the land belonging to the appellants’ predecessor in title and the appellants was not shown in the Conveyance Deed prepared by the plaintiff-developer. It is stated that for about 16,000 sq. meters of land the appellants predecessor in title was paid Rs.23,00,000/- in the year 1989 and that for additional area of about 2000 sq. meters for which the Supplementary Agreement was executed in 2001 a further sum of Rs.46,00,000/- was paid. It is submitted that the appellants-defendants are entitled to continue to possess a further additional land of about 2000 sq. meters which is now found as additional land as per the measurement made by the Collector in the year 2004 which was not shown to the appellants at the time of execution of the Supplementary Deed of conveyance. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has referred to various documents in support of the contention that the appellants’ predecessor in title had sold the entire land without retaining a single inch of land for himself. The suit land was sold by description. The plan annexed to the agreements show the area delineated in red colour boundary. Hence the price was paid for the entire area comprised within the said boundary. Therefore, the appellants-defendants have no land which they can claim to be of their own or of which they can claim to be in possession. 4. It is further submitted that the plaintiff-developer has already developed the disputed land for the purpose of construction and that the gopi 3 wp.607-11 & n.m.2690-11 commencement certificate has also been issued in favour of the plaintiff- developer. The respondent-plaintiff has commenced construction by filling the land which is now claimed by the appellants-defendants to be in their possession. It is submitted that if at this stage the ad-interim order passed by the learned trial Judge is interfered with and the appellants-defendants continue to be in possession of the land it will not be possible for the plaintiff to develop the property. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be served if the ad-interim order passed by the learned trial Judge of this Court dated 25 August 2011 is not interfered with, provided the respondent-plaintiff deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- before the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court. The Court Receiver will take over possession of the disputed land as soon as the respondent-plaintiff deposits the sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-but till the Court Receiver takes over possession of the disputed land the ad- interim relief in terms of prayer (b) granted by the learned trial Judge shall continue. It is made clear that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and it will be open to the parties to raise all contentions at the hearing of the Notice of Motion. 6. Needless to say that the appellants-defendants will not transfer, alienate or dispose of the disputed land nor will they part with possession of the disputed land till the Court Receiver takes over the possession of the said land. 7. The amount as and when deposited with the Prothonotary & Senior Master be invested in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank gopi 4 wp.607-11 & n.m.2690-11 under the cumulative interest scheme initially for 37 months and the investment shall continue to be renewed without seeking any further orders for similar period. 8. Appeal and Notice of Motion accordingly stand disposed of. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)