pvr 1 appl884-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODG) NO.884 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2284 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1946 OF 2006 1.Kishor Gujar & Anr. ...Appellants vs. 1.Rampratap Gangaprasad Upadhyay and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Kirit J.Hakani i/b. Divya Shah, for Appellants. Mr.A.G.Damle, for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 22nd December, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for Appellants. Perused the reply filed by the Appellants before the learned Single Judge. He has not pleaded anything in that reply, and therefore, in our opinion, in the absence of any pleadings and documents being produced by the Appellants, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in making the order. It was pvr 2 appl884-10 submitted on behalf of the Appellants that in the plaint there is no prayer for possession, and therefore the Receiver could not have been appointed. It is clear from the order that when the suit was filed the premises were locked, and therefore, they were not in anybody s possession. In any case, they are not in possession of the defendants, and therefore, there was no need to make a prayer for decree of possession. 2. Taking overall view of the matter and taking into consideration the nature of the reply filed by the Appellants, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is a just order and therefore, no interference is called for. The appeal is rejected. Notice of motion no.____ of 2010 is also disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)