1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 718 OF 2009 IN COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 48 OF 2008 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1531 OF 2004 IN SUIT NO. 496 OF 1996 Gajanan H. Wandrekar ...... Plaintiff. V/s Ramesh R. Wandrekar ....... Defendant And Nitin Pandurang Angolkar .......Applicant. ---- Mr. V. Kothari, for the Plaintiff. Mr. C.M. Kothari, for Defendant No.16 in Suit No.1574 of 1997. Mr. P.G. Karande, for the Applicant. Mr. S.A. Vichare, representative of the Court Receiver. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 11 th JANUARY, 2009 . P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has challenged the order dated 20.2.2009. By the said order passed on the Court Receiver’s Report No.48 of 2008, the Court Receiver was directed to take possession of the shed situated in the compound of the suit premises. This order was passed 2 since the applicant herein did not pay the royalty amount fixed by the Court Receiver. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant herein is a great grand son of the owner of the property and the said shed is patra-shed admeasuring 10ft. X 10ft, and that the amount of royalty fixed by the Court Receiver @ Rs.1500/- is excessive. He further submits that the other occupants occupying similar area were directed to pay only monthly taxes, and therefore the order dated 20.2.2009 directing the Court Receiver to take possession be recalled. 2. It is an admitted position that the Court Receiver had fixed a quantum of royalty @ Rs.1500/- p.m. in the year 1997. The order of fixation of quantum of royalty @ Rs.1500/- p.m. had not been challenged by the applicant herein for a last twelve years. It is, therefore, not open now for the applicant to challenge the quantum of royalty fixed by the Court Receiver in the year 1997. The applicant is therefore cannot be permitted to challenge the fixation of quantum of royalty fixed by the Court Receiver. 3. In view of the above, no case is made out by the applicant for recalling of order dated 20.2.2009. The Court Receiver is therefore directed to comply with the order dated 20.2.2009. If the applicant does not hand over the possession of the shed to the Court 3 Receiver, Court Receiver may take assistance of the police. If Court Receiver finds lock on the said shed, Court Receiver or his representative to break open the lock and take possession thereof. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant seeks stay of this order. The request cannot be acceded to, on the ground that the applicant did not pay the royalty amount since the year 1997 and has been enjoying the possession of the said shed/premises for the last twelve years. Secondly, apart from committing the breach of the undertaking given by him while taking possession, he has violated the orders of this court, and therefore, the Court Receiver took appropriate steps by submitting the report to the court in view of breach of undertaking by the applicant. 5. Under these circumstances, the request for stay of this order is rejected. 6. The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of in terms of aforesaid order. (V.M. KANADE, J.)