jpc wp9723-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9723 OF 2011 Rajendera Sabnis ... Petitioner Versus Anant Sabnis and another ... Respondents Mr. H. T. Pawar for the petitioner Mr. M. V. Upadhye for the respondents CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 24th November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 30th May, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay by which order the application Exh. 13 filed by the respondents/defendants came to be allowed and the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to approach the Court Receiver for completing the formalities for execution of a Fresh Agency Agreement within two weeks of the said date and thereafter within the next four weeks to deposit the entire outstanding royalty amount with the Court Receiver. 2. The said order has been passed taking into consideration the jpc wp9723-11.sxw 2 directions issued in the order dated 7th May, 2009 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 187 of 2009. The directions 1 and 2 of the said order are material and are reproduced hereunder: (i) The appeal is allowed. the impugned judgment and decree dated 25th September, 2008 passed by the City Civil & Sessions Court in Short Cause Suit No. 596 of 2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Bombay City Civil Court & Sessions Court for fresh hearing. (ii) The interim order of appointment of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay of the suit premises and the appointment of the Respondent as agent of the Court Receiver on payment of the royalty as fixed, is also revived." 3. In the context of the said order, it would be relevant to note that by an order dated 6th May, 2005 passed in Appeal from Order No. 1101 of 2004, this Court (A.S.Oka J.) had directed the Court Receiver who was already appointed on 24th September, 2004 to call for bids from persons for being appointed as agent of the Court Receiver. The bids of the petitioner being highest, he was appointed as an Agent. The suit in question came to be decided by the judgment and order dated 25th September, 2008 and the Court Receiver resultantly came to be discharged. The said judgment and order of the trial court came to be challenged by way of First Appeal No. 187 of 2009 which came to be decided on 7th May, 2009 and the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 25th September, 2009 came to be set jpc wp9723-11.sxw 3 aside and the matter came to be remanded back to the trial Court for a de- novo consideration and the directions as contained in clause (ii) above as regards the Court Receiver came to be issued. In terms of the said directions, the said Application Exh.13 came to be filed by the defendants. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff who has been appointed as the Agent of the Court Receiver that he is not liable to pay royalty for the period from 25th September, 2008 to 7th May, 2009 in view of the fact that the Court Receiver came to be discharged on the conclusion of the Suit. In my view, the said submission cannot countenanced in the light of clause (ii) above, whereby the order appointing the Court Receiver as well as the plaintiff as being his Agent has been revived, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the said property i.e. the suit premises and is carrying on business. In the light of the aforesaid, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 13th May, 2011. The alternative prayer made by the petitioner/plaintiff is that some time may be granted to deposit the amount, if this court is against him in so far as the challenge in the above petition is concenred. 5. In my view, the only indulgence that can by shown to the plaintiff is that the time mentioned in the order dated 13th May, 2011 can be extended. jpc wp9723-11.sxw 4 The petitioner/plaintiff, therefore, to pay the outstanding royalty in two instalments of 50% of the outstanding amount. The first instalment to be paid within one month from date and the next to paid as follows: First instalment of 50% by 25th of December, 2011 and the next 50% to be paid by 28th of January, 2012. The Court Receiver to accordingly act upon this order and communicate the figure to the petitioner/plaintiff. The parties would bring this order to the notice of the Court Receiver forthwith. The petitioner to file undertaking in this Court within a week from date that he would pay the said amount as directed within the time stipulated in this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)