1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2782 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 1961 OF 2003 Mehrunnisa Mohd. Mustafa Bansalat Chaudhary. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Chaudhary Mohd. Rafiq Shaukat Ali & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. Jayesh Bhatt for the Plaintiff. Mr. S. Shah a/w. Ms. M. Bookwala i/b. Bilawala & Co. for Defendants 1 to 4, 6 to 10, 23 & 24. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 3RD DECEMBER 2008 P.C. :- 1. The Plaintiff has filed this Notice of Motion requesting for appointment of Court Receiver, High Court as Receiver of the properties which are more particularly described in prayer clause (a) of the Motion. 2 2. Prayer clause (b) is with regard to an injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 3, 23,24 and 27 or their servants and agents from disposing of these properties. 3. Mr. Bhatt appearing for the Plaintiff states that the Motion has been moved pursuant to liberty granted by this Court to amend the plaint. He submits that the plaint has been amended and thereafter, immediately, the present Notice of Motion is moved. Mr. Bhatt at the outset states that he does not press for appointmet of a Court Receiver but interim injunction in terms of prayer clause (b) be granted. 4. My attention is invited to the affidavit in support and more particularly paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5 thereof. 5. My attention is also invited to the reply affidavit and the rejoinder. 6. After hearing Mr. Bhatt and Mr. Shah at some length what 3 is apparent from the record is that the Plaintiff had moved Notice of Motion No.3527 of 2002 in Suit No.4007 of 2002. That was a Suit according to the Plaintiff against the Shahadat Branch. The present Suit is filed against Shaukat Branch. Both Branches have a common interest in the property which is subject matter of Suit No.4007 of 2002. The Notice of Motion in that Suit was disposed off on 6th May 2004. It is stated that against the said order, Defendant No.32 in that Suit filed an Appeal being Appeal No.558 of 2004. The Appellate Court has passed an interim order after admitting the Appeal and now, the property at Chakala, Andheri is in possession of the Court Receiver. 7. However, as far as Shaukat Branch is concerned, the argument on behalf of the First Defendant is that Item No.1, Flat No.113, `A' Wing, Heera Panna Building was purchased by Defendant No.1 under an agreement for sale dated 2nd August 1976 much prior to the death of the deceased and thereafter, Defendant No.1, mother of Defendant No.1 are in use, occupation and possession of the same. It is not part of the estate of the deceased. 4 8. In rejoinder it is contended that the grandmother was already of advanced age and the flat was purchased in her name only for convenience. She had no funds. At that time Defendant No.1 was 18 years age and has no independant income. In such circumstances, it is unconceivable that the Flat was purchased by the First Defendant with his own or independent income. 9. After the matter was agrued for some time, as far as the Flat No.113 which is listed in prayer clause (a) at Item No.1, both sides agree that status-quo as of today would be maintained in respect of this Flat untill further orders. 10. As far as properties which are listed at prayer (a), Serial Nos. II to VIII are concerned, in the light of the fact that the Appeal preferred by the developer in the other Suit is pending and even in the present Suit a Notice of Motion was moved and from the order passed in that Notice of Motion, an appeal is pending before the Division Bench, liberty is granted to the present Plaintiff to move for interim 5 reliefs in so far as the properties listed above after Appeal No.558 of 2004 and Appeal No. 574 of 2004 are disposed off. All contentions of both sides are kept open as far as the other properties are concerned. 11. With the above order, this Motion is disposed off. 12. Needless to state that until the Appeal is disposed off, the Defendants who are concerned with the properties listed at Sr.Nos.II to XIII in prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion will not claim any equities, and all dealings and transactions in respect of these properties shall be at their own risk and subject to further orders in the Suit. (S.C. Dharmadhikari,J.)