*1* chs.1789.09.418.10 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.418 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.353 OF 2009 Bastion Construction. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Nusli N. Wadia and others. ..Defendants .......... Sharan Jagtiani i/b Mahimtura & Company, for the Plaintiff. N.H.Seervai, Senior Counsel a/w Falguni Thakkar i/b Doijode Associates, for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd November, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard Mr.Jagtiani and Mr.Seervai. 2 By this Chamber Summons the Plaintiff seeks leave under Order-XL Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to institute the proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, so also, the Court Receiver. Since the Court Receiver has been appointed on the property this application seeking leave is made. 3 Having heard the learned counsel at some length, I am of the opinion that leave as prayed deserves to be granted. Accordingly, Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). It is clarified that mere grant of leave does not mean that the Court has expressed any opinion on the rights and contentions of the parties and on the maintainability of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. All contentions in that behalf of both sides are kept open. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) *2* chs.1789.09.418.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1789 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.353 OF 2009 Bastion Construction. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Nusli N. Wadia and others. ..Defendants .......... Sharan Jagtiani i/b Mahimtura & Company, for the Plaintiff. N.H.Seervai, Senior Counsel a/w Falguni Thakkar i/b Doijode Associates, for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd November, 2010. P.C. 1 This Chamber Summons seeks direction to the Court Receiver, who has been appointed as a receiver, to execute the Agency Agreement. 2 The Chamber Summons proceeds on the basis that the Court has directed that the Receiver should appoint the Plaintiff as his agent. 3 The order passed to that effect has already been vacated by me. Since the Plaintiff is no longer agent of the Court Receiver, there is no question of passing any order particularly directing the Receiver to execute the Agency Agreement. Therefore, Chamber Summons is dismissed as infructuous. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)