1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.237 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 5172 OF 2000 Umesh J. Patel & Ors. ....Plaintiffs V/s Harishankar R. Mhatre and Ors. .... Defendants. Mr. H.V. Kode for plaintiffs. Mr. Harindar Toor i/b Mr. Sagar Pawar for defendant No.10. Mr. K.L. Vyas, Court Receiver, present. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 16th October, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.10. 2. By order dated 1/10/2002, by consent of parties, defendant No.10 was appointed as agent of the Court Receiver without royalty but with security. Plaintiffs have filed the suit 2 inter alia challenging the conveyance which was made in favour of defendant No.10 and, during the pendency of this suit, taking into consideration the fact that defendant No.10 is in possession, the said order was passed by consent of parties. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs that though defendant No.10 was appointed as agent of the Court Receiver by order dated 1/10/2002, he has not executed the agency agreement. He further submitted that plaintiffs may be permitted to appoint valuer at their own cost for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the suit property. It is submitted that since agency agreement has not been executed by defendant No.10, plaintiffs may be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver. It is further submitted that defendant No.10 has not cooperated with the Court Receiver. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.10, on the other hand, has invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed by defendant No.10. He submitted that the property has been shown as agricultural land in the record of right entries and 7 x 12 Extracts. It is further submitted that even B.M.C. has valued the said property at Rs 14 lakhs. He submitted that defendant No.10 has cooperated 3 with the Court Receiver. He further submitted that plaintiffs have challenged the valuation of the B.M.C by filing Writ Petition in this Court which was later on withdrawn by plaintiffs. It is further submitted that defendant No.10 is willing to deposit Rs 14 lakhs towards the security deposit since there was valuation made by B.M.C. 5. Documents which are annexed to the affidavit in reply prima facie show that the said property is agricultural land and, therefore, contention of the plaintiffs that it should be valued at Rs 7 crore cannot be accepted. Defendant No.10, therefore, shall deposit Rs 14 lakhs towards security deposit with Court Receiver and execute the agency agreement within a period of six weeks. 6. Counsel for plaintiffs submits that so far as the assessment is concerned, dispute is pending before the Collector. Liberty is given to plaintiffs to apply in the event the assessment made by the Collector is higher than that of the B.M.C. 7. Court Receiver’s report is disposed of accordingly. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4