IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2008 NO. 318 OF 2008 NO. 318 OF 2008 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 984 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO. 984 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO. 984 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 3573 OF 2006 NO. 3573 OF 2006 NO. 3573 OF 2006 Shaheen Kausar Sharif ..Appellant V/s. State Bank of India & Ors. ..Respondents ...... Mr. Abhay L. Patki for the Appellant Ms. Heena Mody for the Respondents ...... CORAM CORAM CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & SHRI SHRI SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 11ST AUGUST, 2008. : 11ST AUGUST, 2008. : 11ST AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: . Heard. 2. The Appellant has impugned the order dated 16th June, 2008 passed by the learned Trial Judge, in which it is directed that subject vehicle in question i.e. Maruti Suzuki Baleno Car bearing Registration No.MH-DBP-1571, the Court Receiver is appointed for taking over possession and disposed off the same and the proceeds of the same be recovered and deposited the same in the Court. : 2 : 3. After taking possession of the hypothecated car described in Exhibit E, C3 and C5 with all powers under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and then plaintiff is granted liberty to move for appropriate direction in order to the same after receiver take possession of the car. 4. In the background of the said facts, this Court finds that the learned Trial Judge has not committed any error or illegality in adopting this course in respect of appointment of Court Receiver, as it was not disputed by the Appellant Petitioner-Original Defendant No.3 that the amount of loan advanced by the Respondent-Plaintiff has been credited in the account of the Appellant (Original Defendant No.3) with H.S.B.C. which had advanced the loan for purchasing the motor vehicle in question. 5. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction and the fact that the loan of Appellant-Defendant No.3 stands discharged by the payment made by State Bank of India on the request of Respondent-original defendant No.1. given against the motor vehicle in question, it was just and proper to appoint a Court Receiver. : 3 : 6. The Trial Court has granted liberty to the plaintiff to move for appropriate direction in regard to sale after Court Receiver takes possession of the car. We make it clear that even the Appellant will have right to lodge her claim in the matter before the Trial Court. We, therefore, dismiss this Appeal. 7. The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. Patel, J.) Patel, J.) Patel, J.) (K.K. (K.K. (K.K. Tated, J.) Tated, J.) Tated, J.)