IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.384 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.384 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.384 OF 2008 Mohan Bhikaji Dongre ... Appellant Vs. M/s Nalanda Enterprises & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. K.K. Malpathak for appellant. Mr. S.K. Shah with R.G. Bhat i/by Mrs. Lata Wadhwani for respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE DATE DATE : 2ND JULY, 2008 : 2ND JULY, 2008 : 2ND JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. Considering the facts of the case, the appointment of the Receiver was certainly justified. Consent Terms pending the Special Civil Suit No.595 of 1992 were arrived at in Appeal from Order No.279 of 1994 as recorded in the Order dated 17th January, 1994 in the A.O. By these consent terms, only 2100 sq. ft. built-up area had been agreed to be handed over to the appellant. 2. The appellant’s contention is that the present premises were subsequently handed over to the appellant. Prima facie, it is difficult to accept this contention. There was no application 2 for variation of the order dated 17th January, 1994. In the normal course, parties would apply to have the order varied especially where it involved an important aspect of handing over premises. Nor am I inclined to interfere with the reliance placed by the trial Court on the report of the hand writing expert appointed by the Police, who is an independent witness. 3. It is true that there has been a delay in filing the suit. However, the manner in which the possession was taken has not been explained satisfactorily. After possession was taken, it is not as if respondent No. 1 did nothing in the matter. Complaints were filed and when no congnizance was taken a Writ Petition was filed. Moreover it is important to note that possession was taken from the licensee and handed over to a third party. The third party in view of the above proceedings, terminated the agreement. In these circumstances, appointment of a Receiver is justified. 4. The Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 3 5. The order is stayed upto 31st August, 2008. The Receiver shall not dis-possess the appellant. The Receiver till 31st August, 2008 shall take only formal possession of the property. However, till then the appellant shall not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party right, title or interest in respect of the said premises.