: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3193 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.2875 OF 2005 Rameshpukhraj Jain ....Plaintiff V/s. Poonam O. Surana & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.Omprakash Pandey i/b M/s.K.R. Tiwari & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr.A.B. Dubey i/b M/s.Bharat Vaishnawa & Co. for the Defendants. Mr.S.J. Chaurasia i/b Mr.A.M. Saraoji for the Applicant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2008. P.C. : 1. The suit is filed for dissolution and accounts of the registered partnership firm M/s.Mahaveer Construction Co. 2. There is no dispute that the partnership is at will (Clause 6 of the partnership deed). The circumstances furnish no reasons for not following the normal rule of appointment of a Court Receiver in a suit of dissolution and accounts in respect of the partnership at will. On the contrary, the facts and : 2 : circumstances warrant appointment of a Court Receiver. 3. The suit is not filed by the constituted attorney on behalf of a partner. The suit is filed by the partner through his constituted attorney. 4. The averment in the plaint that the firm was registered was denied in the affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in re-joinder, the particulars of the registration were furnished. Thereafter there was nothing from the Defendant to contradict the same. The suit therefore cannot be dismissed under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. 5. It appears that in respect of one of the projects of the firm, several third party interests have been created including in favour of several flat purchasers. The flat purchasers had filed Chamber Summons No.104 of 2006 for being impleaded as party Defendants. The Chamber Summons was dismissed by an order dated 7.11.2006 inter-alia on the ground that the flat purchasers had been put in possession and their remedy was to file a suit for specific performance if they had any outstanding grievance. 6. Admittedly, before the Court of Sessions : 3 : Court at Bombay in Anticipatory Bail Application No.929 of 2005, the consent terms were filed between the parties to the suit except the Plaintiff and some of the flat purchasers. It is made clear that the present order does not affect the rights of the flat purchasers who in all probabilities are innocent victims in the matter. They are at liberty to adopt proceedings for enforcement of their rights. In such case the matter will be decided on merits without being influenced by this order. 7. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) as it originally stood. In other words it is made clear that the order shall not operate in respect of the amendment introduced by Rider-1. The Notice of Motion is also made in terms of prayer (b). Third parties including the said flat purchasers shall continue to remain in use and occupation of the premises as the agents of the Court Receiver but without security or royalty. In the event of their desiring to alienate, encumber and part with possession of the premises in their occupation or creating any third party rights in respect thereof, they are at liberty to make an application to this Court.