1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1827 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.682 OF 2010 Philip Joseph Fernandes and Anr. .. Plaintiffs Vs. Alex Fernandes and Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Suresh D. Barne for the plaintiffs Mr.Cliford Martis for defendant no.1 Ms.G.T.Dutta for defendant nos.2 to 4 CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : September 29, 2010 P.C. : 1. In the written statement, defendant no.1 has in para 9 page 38 stated thus: "9. Reference para 8 of the plaint: The contention about the plaintiffs' apprehensions, due to the approach of this defendant and the fact of having thrown out the plaintiff no.2 from the common property, that this defendant will create third party rights in the suit property to defraud the other legal heirs is a figment of the imagination of the ever fertile minds of 2 the plaintiffs which are working overtime to find ways and means to lay a claim to the suit property where none exists. This defendant has no intentions of creating third party rights in the suit premises. This defendant denies that it is just, necessary and proper to appoint a Court Receiver in respect of the suit property." 2. In the light of this statement there is no apprehension that the defendant no.1 is going to dispose of the suit property. This is a statement made in the written statement of the defendant no.1 which he has adopted as an affidavit in reply to the notice of motion. Considering the fact that such is the nature of the assurance given to the court and the statement is accepted as an undertaking to this court, notice of motion itself can be allowed in these terms. It is allowed in terms of the statement in para 9 as reproduced above. 3. Notice of Motion is disposed of. This order will continue during the pendency of the suit. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )