1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2527 OF 2009 Girish M. Joshi .. Petitioner versus Jagat Manubhai Parikh & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.K.Singh i/by M.P.Vashi & Associates for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Lad for the respondent No.5. Mr.K.L.Vyas, Court Receiver present. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the parties have settled the dispute and they are filing consent terms before the trial Court. He states that parties will obtain necessary orders from the trial Court as regards discharge of the Court Receiver. He seeks permission to withdraw this petition. 2. The Court Receiver has submitted a detailed report in terms of the earlier orders passed by this Court. Now the Receiver has already taken over the possession. 3. There is one more aspect which deserves to be dealt with in this petition as regards the office of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay. As the 2 name suggests, the Court Receiver is an officer of this Court. I find that the City Civil Court is regularly appointing the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as Receiver in many suits. All other Civil Courts in the State are appointing private receivers or officers of the concerned Courts as the Receiver. Even the Debt Recovery Tribunal has now adopted practice of appointing private receivers. My attention has been invited to a decision of the Division Bench dated 23rd January 2001. By the said decision, this Court has given various directions. In the operative part of the order of this Court, the Division Bench has observed that Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay being an employee of the High Court is subject to administrative control of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Therefore, the Division Bench recommended to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice that Court Receiver’s service may be made available to the Debt Recovery Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal for a period of one year from the date of the order. 4. Thus, the order of Division Bench notes that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is an employee of the High Court who is subject to administrative control of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. There is no provision either in the Original Side Rules or in the Rules framed under the City Civil Courts Act which empowers the City Civil Court to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as a Receiver in the suits and proceedings filed in the City Civil Court at Bombay. The Court Receiver in his report has pointed out provisions of Chapter I of the Office Manual issued by the office of the Court Receiver in which it is stated that the Court Receiver may be 3 appointed as a Receiver of a property either by the High Court or by the City Civil Court. The Office Manual is nothing but a book of departmental instructions. Prima facie it appears to me that on the basis of the provisions of the Office Manual, the City Civil Court does not get jurisdiction to appoint an officer of this Court as the Receiver in suits and proceedings pending in the said Court. By that logic, every Court in the State of Maharashtra will be entitled to appoint Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as a Receiver. 5. In the report of the Court Receiver various orders passed by the City Civil Court have been pointed out. The office of the Court Receiver is already under enormous pressure as by virtue of orders passed by this Court in various suits and proceedings including the arbitration petitions under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1946, the Court Receiver is required to look after very large and valuable immovable properties in the City of Bombay and at other places. In fact, by virtue of appointment as of the Court Receiver in suits filed in this Court, the Receiver has to look after properties which are situated even outside the State of Maharashtra. Considering the enormous pressure on the office of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay and the lack adequate infrastructure, the said office cannot be burdened any further. There is no provision of law under which any Court subordinate to this Court can appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as a Receiver. Therefore, necessary directions may be required to be issued on the administrative side. It is, therefore, directed that 4 a copy of this order shall be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for considering the matter on the administrative side. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (b) A copy of this order shall be placed by the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for taking necessary action on the administrative side. (c) The statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the parties will apply for discharge of the Court Receiver before the trial Court is accepted. (A.S.OKA,J)