IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’s REPORT NO.290 OF 2009 in SUIT NO. 704 of 1993 Mrs Shanti Gopalkrishnan ...Plaintiff Vs Mrs.Vasanta Kumaran & ors ....Defendants. Ms Pranjali Bhandari i.b Ms Khusbu Prabhu for Plaintiff Mr.Rupesh Mandhare i.b Mr.Sean Wassodev for Defendant nos.2 & 3 Mr.K.L.Vyas Court Receiver present Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : January 12, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 and 3. 2. Court Receiver’s report was placed for orders before this Court on 24.11.2009. At the request of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 report was adjourned for one week and thereafter placed before this Court today. However, none appears for respondent nos.1 to 6. 3. The Court Receiver has sought directions from this Court to the respondent nos. 1 to 6 to deposit with the registry a sum of Rs.90,150/- being the amount of difference between estimated cost and actual cost of proposed restoration work. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos 1 to 6 have already deposited Rs.3,13,000/- with the Court Receiver in pursuance of order dated 19.1.2009. The amount of Rs.3,13,000/- was the estimated cost of restoration work in pursuance of an estimate of M/s Nadkarni & Co. However, the actual restoration work was required to be carried out by M/s Buildcraft Associates, Civil and Plumbing Contractor of the High Court, Bombay and the actual cost required to be incurred is Rs. 4,03,150/- as per letter of 21.4.2009. 5. In the above circumstances, Respondent nos. 1 to 6 collectively are directed to deposit with the office of the Court Receiver a sum of Rs. 90,150/-, within a period of four weeks from today towards balance amount of the restoration work. In view of the above directions, prayer clause (b) and (c) will not survive. Accordingly, Court Receiver's report is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d). R. V. MORE, J.