1 caf2956-10 rpa FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2956 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2002 Parmadevi Ramsurat Mishra & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. .. Respondent .... Mr. M. U. Pandey for the applicants. Mr. C. D'Souza i/b. Mr. Pravin Mehta & Mithai & Co. for the respondent Nos. 1 and . Mr. Vinod Mahadik for respondent – BMC. Mr. Jitendra G. Damani for respondent Nos. 4 & 5. .... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JUNE 14, 2011. P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. The applicants are the legal representatives of respondent No.6 in the Appeal. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.6 to the Appeal was appointed as the agent of the Court Receiver in respect of the suit premises. By interim order, of this Court passed way back on 8th October, 2004, after hearing the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the interim order appointing respondent No.6 as the agent of the Court Receiver has been continued by 2 caf2956-10 this Court till the disposal of the suit. The said order has not been challenged by any party. The respondent No.6 in Appeal died during the pendency of the Appeal. The present applicants have been brought on record as the legal representatives of respondent No.6. The order bringing on record the present applicants as legal representatives of the respondent No.6 in Appeal has not been challenged till today. By this application, the legal representatives of the respondent No.6 pray that one of them (second applicant) be appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 has opposed this application by contending that in the year 2010 the suit premises was gutted in fire. He pointed out that the 6th respondent has died five years back and this application has been belatedly made. He submitted that there is no specific consent of applicant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 for appointing applicant No.2 as the agent of the Court Receiver as the application has been affirmed by only the second applicant. He submitted that injustice has been done by this Court by appointing the respondent No. 6 in Appeal as agent of the Court Receiver. By appointing the second applicant as the agent of the Court Receiver, injustice will be done. When this Court has pointed out that this application is signed by all the applicants, he submitted that he was not sure that whether the signatures appearing are the signatures of the applicants. He, therefore, submitted that application be rejected. 3 caf2956-10 3. It must be noted here that it is not the case made out in the reply filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that the present application does not bear the signatures of all the applicants. The said contention is raised for the first time during the course of arguments. The status of the applicants as the legal representatives of respondent No.6 in Appeal has not been challenged by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. During the pendency of the suit and during the pendency of the Appeal, the respondent No.6 in the Appeal continued to act as agent of the Court Receiver. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if one of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.6 is continued as agent of the Court Receiver. Till today, the Court Receiver has not brought on record any breach of the terms of agency committed by the deceased respondent No.6 in the Appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants on instructions states that the royalty amount has been paid up to today. Statement is accepted. 4. As some grievance has been made regarding the correct address of the applicants, the Court Receiver will verify and put on record the correct addresses of the applicants. 5. It is obvious that as this application has been signed by all the five applicants, it is not necessary for the applicant No.2 to take consent of all the applicants for appointing him as the agent of the Court Receiver. That is 4 caf2956-10 the prayer made in this application signed by all the applicants. 6. Hence, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. It is obvious that appointment of second applicant as the agent will be on the terms and conditions on which the respondent No.6 in the Appeal was appointed as agent of the Receiver in this Court. 8. Parties and Receiver to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry. (A.S.OKA, J)