1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3383 OF 2002 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3383 OF 2002 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3383 OF 2002 IN IN IN SUIT NO.3814 OF SUIT NO.3814 OF SUIT NO.3814 OF 2001 2001 2001 Citibank N.A. .. Plaintiff versus Mrs Rupa Dhumatkar & ors .. Defendants Ms Rekha Tawade i.b M.V.Kini for Plaintiff Mr R.S.Datar for Defendant no.2 Mr Ramesh Jain for Defendant nos.3 & 4 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 15th April 2005. DATED : 15th April 2005. DATED : 15th April 2005. P.C:- P.C:- P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant nos. 2,3 and 4. None present for the defendant no. 1 though served. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff for appointment of a receiver is that the defendant no. 1 is indebted to the plaintiff. In my 2 view, mere indebtedness, by itself, is not a sufficient ground for appointment of a receiver. Order 40 Rule 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to remove from the possession or custody of a property any person whom any party to the suit has no a present right so to remove. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is unable to point out any agreement or other provision of law which entitles it to presently dispossess the defendant no.1 through the appointment of a receiver. In the circumstances, no ground for appointment of a receiver is made out. Hence, motion is dismissed. D.G.KARNIK, J