1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 81 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4377 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.3368 OF 2008 Along with the Notice of Motion in Appeal Mr. Mohd. Mustakeem Khan. .. Appellant Vs Melstar Developers Private Limited & Ors. .. Respondents -- WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 84 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4372 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3372 OF 2008 Along with Notice of Motion in Appeal Shrinivas Motilal Bhagat. .. Appellant. Vs. Melstar Developers Private Limited & Ors. .. Respondents -- WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 85 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4376 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3370 OF 2008 Along with Notice of Motion in Appeal 2 Mr. Anees Ismail Shaikh. .. Appellant. Vs. Melstar Developers Private Limited & Ors. .. Respondents WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 86 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4374 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3371 OF 2008 Along with Notice of Motion in Appeal Vijay Shankar Kadam. .. Appellant. Vs. Melstar Developers Private Limited & Ors. .. Respondents -- WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 87 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4375 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3369 OF 2008 Along with Notice of Motion in Appeal Mohd. Younus Mohd. Hussain Shaikh. ..Appellant. Vs. Melstar Developers Private Limited & Ors. ..Respondents -- Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni i/by Jain & Associates for the Appellant. Shri Janak Dwarkadas along with Shri Sharan Jagtiani and Mangesh Raikar i/by DSK Legal for Respondent No.1. Shri Jayesh Mestry i/by RMG Law Associates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. -- 3 CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATED : 6TH JULY, 2009. P.C. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. These Appeals have been directed against the order dated 2nd February, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge granting ad- interim order of appointing Receiver and issuing certain further directions to the Receiver in relation to the property in question. The basic grievance raised before us in the present Appeal is that the Appellant had not been given an opportunity to file reply and argue the Notice of Motion on merits which is still pending. It is not in dispute before us that the present Appellant/original defendant had earlier filed a suit before the City Civil Court which was withdrawn. Be that as it may, as the Notice of Motion itself is pending, we would dispose of this Appeal with the following order. (a) All the Appellants in all these Appeals should deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- per plot per month payable from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge i.e. 2nd February, 2009. Subject to 4 their depositing the said amount, they will continue to be in possession as agents of the Receiver and they should continue to pay the said amount. Liberty to the parties to pray before the learned Single Judge for early hearing and disposal of the said Notice of Motion. Any observation made in this order would be inconsequential for final hearing of the Notice of Motion. In the event, the amount is not deposited within four weeks from today, protection granted to the Appellants under this order shall automatically stand vacated. (b) Appeals are disposed of accordingly. (c) In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the Notices of Motion taken out therein do not survive and accordingly stand disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J