1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4430 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3206 OF 2007 Urmila Babusingh Tomar ....Plaintiff. V/s Parvatibai Madhavrao Ghogre, . ... Defendant. --- Mr. Q.M. AshfaqK.S. Pachoo i/b Avesh Kayser, for the Plaintiff. Mr. V.P. Sawant a/w Mr. Ajay S. Gadkari, for the Defendant. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 11 th JANUARY, 2010 . P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit under section-6 of the Specific Relief Act, and that they are dispossessed by the defendant from the suit premises. The plaintiff along with her family were detained by the Police illegally. The plaintiff had purchased the suit premises which consists ‘hut’ situated in slum area. According to the 2 plaintiff she has paid for consideration amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and defendant had executed three documents in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff documents executed her favour discloses that plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the it is the case of the plaintiff that Court Receiver should be appointed and the plaintiff may be appointed as the agent of the Court Receiver. He further submits that four inconsistent defences have been raised by the defendant. He invited my attention to the documents which are annexed to the plaint in support of his submission. In the present case, the statement has been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant that the defendant shall not create any third party right in respect of the suit premises. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that if the relief, which is now prayed by the plaintiff, is granted it would amount to passing the decree in this suit at this stage. 3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, in my view, there is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant that granting relief, as prayed by the plaintiff, would amount to passing the final decree at this stage. 3 4. However, apart from recording the statement of the defendant, it would be appropriate if the Notice of Motion of the Plaintiff is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) during the pendency of the suit. Granting prayer clause (b) with regard to appointment of the Court Receiver and appointing his agent is therefore declined. 5. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Hearing of the suit is expedited. 6. Stand over to 2nd February, 2010 for framing of the issues. (V.M. KANADE, J.)