1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.414 of 2007 IN SUIT NO.266 of 2007 M/s.Ganga Developers .. Plaintiff versus Sheetal Bedi and Anr. .. Defendants ... Mr.S.S.Joshi for the plaintiff. Mr.Samir A. Vaidya for the defendant no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :20th July 2009 P.C:- 1. This motion is taken out by the plaintiff for appointment of a receiver and in the alternative an order of injunction restraining the defendants from selling the suit property. 2. The plaintiff is a builder and promoter. By an agreement of sale dated 7th January 2004, the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant no.1 the suit 2 flat for a total consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- out of which Rs.8,00,000/- were paid by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, defendant has not paid balance consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- and therefore has filed this suit for specific performance. In the suit, he has taken out the motion for appointment of a receiver and injunction. 2. Perusal of the plaint shows that thought the written agreement was entered into on 7th January 2004. Prior to it there was an oral agreement between the parties under which the defendant no.1 paid to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by three different cheques dated 17th January 2002, 23rd February 2002 and 7th March 2002. This was two years prior to the date of the written agreement. Possession of the suit flat was also handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant on 1st March 2002. (paragraph no.5 and 8 of the plaint) It is clear that the defendant no.1 entered into the possession of the suit shop even prior to the agreement of sale. 3. According to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 has committed a breach of the agreement by not paying the balance consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-. The defendant of course, has denied this and has contended that she has paid the balance amount in cash. Even if the plaintiff’s case is assumed to be true in totality, admittedly, the plaintiff has not terminated the agreement of sale, In fact, the suit is for specific performance of the agreement of sale and for monetary relief. Plaintiff at best, would be entitled to a money 3 decree and not a decree for possession in the present suit. In my view, the plaintiff has not make out any ground for appointment of a receiver. There is no averment much less a proof of any damage to the suit property. No other sufficient ground for appointment of receiver is made out. In the circumstances, prayer for appointment of receiver has to be rejected. 4. As regards the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from selling the suit property, prima facie, plaintiff is the owner of the property. The defendants have also not shown that ownership has actually been transferred to them. As such, defendants obviously cannot transfer the suit flat to any third party and therefore ad-relief of injunction already granted by this court needs to be confirmed. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R 5. The prayer for appointment of receiver is rejected. However, defendant is restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, creating third party interest or parting with the property without prior permission of the court. (D.G. KARNIK, J)