FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION JUDGE’S ORDER NO.338 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.2792 OF 2006 with JUDGE’S ORDER NO.339 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.648 OF 2003 JUDGE’S ORDER NO.340 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1390 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders. of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sandeep Parikh with Mr.Utkarsha Tiwari i/by Shantilal & Co. for the Defendant No.1. Mr. N.R. Modi i/by Rustomji Ginwala & Co. for the plaintiff in J.O.No.338/2006. Mr.Arvind Kumar i/by Rajani & Associates for Intervenor In J.O.No.339/2006. Mr. Gajendra Machha for the Applicant in J.O.No.340/2006. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 11/10/2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. These matters are moved at the behest of the defendant No.1. It appears that the defendant No.1 is not in possession of the property as the Court Receiver has been appointed in the suit and he has already taken the possession of the property. According to Defendant No.1 he has received a letter from the Manager of Enemy :2: Property dated 11.11.2005 directing him to vacate the property belonging to one Raja Mohammed within 10 days from the issuance of the said letter. Since the Defendant No.1 is not in possession of the property, there is no question of vacating it. The said Manager of Enemy Property is at always liberty to make an application in this suit. Similarly the person to whom the property belongs i.e. Raja Mohammed is also at liberty to make an application if he desires to recover the property. The present Judge’s orders cannot be moved on behalf of the defendant No.1. In fact, the present defendant No.1 has replied to the Manager of Enemy Property vide his letters dated 21.11.2005 and 16.5.2006 placing on record that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is in possession of the property. In view of what is stated above, the aforesaid Judge’s orders stand disposed off. The motion made by the defendant No.1 in the Judge’s orders also stand disposed off. :3: (R.S. MOHITE, J.)