1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION JUDGE’S ORDER NO. 49 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 2398 OF 1992 M/s. Navyug Dal Mills & 4 Ors. … Plaintiffs. Versus Messrs Satyam Enterprises & Anr. .… Defendants. Mr. P.N. Ganwani a/w Ms. M. Sarkar i/b M. Munim & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr. P.G. Karande a/w Mr. V.M. Sharma, for the Defendant No.2. CORAM: V.M.KANADE, J. DATED: 3RD MARCH, 2010. P.C. 1 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff No.4 has filed an affidavit in reply dated 3rd March, 2010 and an application is made by the Defendant No.2 in Suit No. 2398 of 1992 seeking the leave of this Court to sue the Court Receiver as a party Defendant in R.A.E. Suit No. 1265/033 of 2007 which is pending in the Small Causes Court, Bombay. It is firstly submitted inadvertently though the Court Receiver was made as a party in the said suit, leave was not obtained from this Court to sue the Court Receiver. Learned Counsel 2 appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff submitted that leave may not be granted as there is gross delay in filing the application for leave. Secondly, it is submitted that the Defendant No.2 is not entitled to seek leave after filing the suit in the Small Causes Court. Thirdly, it is submitted that the said application is barred by limitation. 2 In my view, the Defendant No.2 has made out the case for grant of leave. Though the suit was filed in the year 2007, the Court Receiver was made a party in the suit. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court and therefore, the present application has been filed. In my view, there is no substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff No.4. The suit is still pending in the Small Causes Court and as such, whenever the Court Receiver is appointed, the Plaintiff in the said suit has to bring this fact to the notice of this Court and accordingly the present application has been filed. Hence, the Judge’s Order is allowed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)