1 crr96-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Court Receiver’s Report No. 96 of 2010 in Suit No. 208 of 1950 Bai Rabiabai widow of Ebrahim Mia Mohammed Haji Jan Mohd. Chotani & Others .. Plaintiffs v/s. The Official Assignee of Bombay The Assignee of the estate and effects of Osman Mia Mohammed Haji Janmohammed Chotani ..Defendant Mr.Sudesh Patil a/w. S.R.Saudagor for the Plaintiff nos.1(a), 1(c), 1(e) amd 1(d). Mr.M.S.Lagu for the Plaintiff No.4(b) and 4(e) Mr.Mohan Naik, Advocate for the Court Receiver Mr.R.M.Pethe, Advocate for the Pune Municipal Corporation Mr.Ketkar, 1st Asst. to Court Receiver. Ms.V.S.Avasare for the Official Assignee CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 6th April, 2011 P.C. : 1. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. Learned Counsel Mr. Pethe appearing on behalf of the Pune Municipal Corporation, upon instructions states that on running page No.107 of the Affidavit in 2 crr96-10.sxw reply filed by Mr. Sudhakar Telang, Officer on special duty working with the Pune Municipal Corporation, the document in the nature of horizontal satement appears. Learned Counsel Mr. Pethe, upon instructions from the concerned Officers states that the said document is Form No.I. (Redistribution and valuation satement under the provisions of Maharashtra Town Planning Scheme Rules, 1974). Learned Counsel Mr. Pethe, upon instructions states that the said document is not prepared by Pune Municipal Corporation and according to the instructions supplied to him the said document is prepared by Town Planning Department of State of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel Mr.Pethe states that in the affidavit in reply at page 184 a document appears. It is also a document prepared by the Town Planning Department of the State of Maharashtra and as per the Redistribution and Valuation statement prepared in Form No.I as per the provisions of Maharashtra Town Planning Scheme Rules, 1974. The statement made by learned Counsel Mr. Pethe is accordingly recorded. 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. The parties in the present suit as well as the Receiver is aggrieved by the statement 3 crr96-10.sxw appearing at page No.107, which according to learned Counsel Mr.Pethe is prepared by the Town Planning Authorities. According to learned Counsels on both sides in the suit, as well as the Receiver, the text of the statement is not correct and it requires detail enquiry as to how this statement has been prepared. Similarly, correctness of the statement is also required to be gone into. 3. Learned Counsels on both sides in the suit as well as the learned Counsel for the Receiver submitted that if this statement is accepted as it is, that would cause prejudice to the parties to the suit as well as to the Receiver. 4. After having considered the rival submissions in the matter, I am inclined to observe that if the parties to the suit are aggrieved by the statement appearing at page 107 of the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Sudhakar Telang, the party who is aggrieved by the said statement will have to file challenge the said statement or any other order which is required to be challenged on the basis of which this statement at page 107 is prepared. In my view, the challenge to statement at page 107 cannot be gone into in a proceeding in the nature of Receiver’s 4 crr96-10.sxw Report. In my view, the very taking out of the Receiver’s report for obtaining relief in terms of prayer clauses are misconceived and therefore it will not be proper for this Court to go into that what is stated in the Court Receiver’s report. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion following order is passed. ORDER i. The Court Receiver’s Report is closed. ii. The Court Receiver, or any of the person who is party to the Suit No.208 of 1950 is free to challenge the entries appearing on page No.107 being the entries said to have been prepared by the Town Planning Authorities by filing appropriate proceedings. Liberty to that extent is granted. Iii) In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. iv) Learned Counsel for the Court Receiver states that as per the Order passed by this Court on 3.2.2000 the Court Receiver has 5 crr96-10.sxw fenced the property in question i.e. Plot No.79 and Plot No.80. Learned Counsel Mrs. Pethe objects to the statement made across the bar by learned Counsel for the Court Receiver. At this juncture I do not wish to go into the factual aspect as to whether the property is fenced or not. If at all the property is fenced the Receiver is free to maintain said fencing. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]