: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.117 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2010 Khira Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Khira Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Bipin Joshi for the Appellants. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar with Ms. P.M. Bhansali for Respondent Nos.1 & 4. Mr. Simil Purohit with Mr. Suraj Juneja and Mr. Anooja Menon i/b. Wadia Ghandy for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 15th December, 2009, passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, dismissing the Notice of Motion No.1882 of 2009 in S.C. Suit No.4588 of 2006 filed by the appellants- plaintiffs. The prayers in the Notice of Motion were as follows : : 2 : (a).This Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the Defendant No.1 and Respondent have willfully and knowingly committed breach and violation of the undertaking dated 19.10.2006, whereby they will not create third party rights in respect of the suit property, i.e. property described in Exhibit A to the plaint by executing Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.9.2009, with Defendant No.2 and be further pleased to declare that the Defendant No.2 have aided and abetted the aforesaid acts of contempt on the part of the Defendant No.1 and the Respondent by executing the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.9.2009, as by M.O.U. Dated 24.9.2009, third party rights are created in favour of the Defendant No.2; (b).The Respondent be committed to civil prison for the period of 3 months or such other period or such other period as this Honourable Court think fit and proper, for the Respondent having committed breach of the undertaking referred in prayer (a) above; (c).Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Honourable Court be pleased to appoint Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay with all powers under Order LX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; (d).This Honourable Court be pleased to strike out the defence taken out by the Defendant No.1 in the reply to the Notice of Motion No.4161 of 2006.” 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants does not press prayers (a) and (b) in the present Appeal : 3 : since the Appeal in respect of these prayers is not maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He confines his arguments only to prayer (c) namely “appointment of a Court Receiver”. 3. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants is that despite the statements made on behalf of the respondents by their Advocates that they would not create third party rights, the respondents-Societies have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in respect of the suit property with respondent No.2 in breach of the statements made by their Counsel. It is in these circumstances, that he submits that a Receiver should be appointed. 4. In my opinion, the trial Court has committed no error by refusing the prayer of the appellants for appointment of the Receiver. The prayer for appointment of a Receiver is obviously as a consequence of the alleged breaches having been committed by the respondents. In my opinion, : 4 : therefore, the prayer cannot be granted when there is a specific finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs have not proved that the defendants had committed a breach of the undertaking. Moreover, the Suit has been filed for an injunction. Therefore, the question of appointment of a Receiver in such a Suit would not arise. 5. The Appeal from Order is dismissed. 6. In view of the above, Civil Application No.179 of 2010 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. .......