.. 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1674 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2294 OF 2008 M/s. Atul Builders & Associates .... Plaintiffs V/s. Gitanjali Sheili Shailendra .... Defendant Mr. Roop M. Vasudeo for the plaintiffs Mrs. Madhubala Kajle, A.G.P. for respondent Mr. G.G. Ketkar, 1st Asstt. to Court Receiver present. Mr. Valmik Kale, P.S.I., Khar Police Station present. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 6TH MAY 2009. P.C. The Learned Advocate for the plaintiffs tenders Affidavit proving service of the Notice of Motion on the defendant. The same is taken on record. 2. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, alleging that the defendant had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the ground floor portion of the suit building. By an order dated 2nd March 2009 passed by this Court (Coram : A.V. Nirgude, J.) this Court had appointed Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay in respect of the ground floor portion of the suit building. In paragraph 13 of the said order dated 2nd March 2009, this Court has interalia observed : “13. It is prima facie clear that the defendant with the help of Police has ousted the plaintiffs from the ground floor area of the suit structure rather high handedly and without following due process of law.” The Court Receiver was therefore directed to appoint the plaintiffs as agents of the Court Receiver without furnishing any security or royalty. SKT/- .. 2 .. 2. The defendant obstructed the Receiver from taking possession of the property as per directions of this Court dated 2nd March 2009. This Court (Coram : A.V. Nirgude, J.) therefore by its order dated 3rd April 2009 directed the Court Receiver to seek Police help and break open locks necessary for entering into the suit premises sought to be taken into possession. 2. Pursuant to the said order, the Court Receiver took possession of the ground floor of the suit premises and handed over possession to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs posted two security guards to guard the said ground floor premises. 3. The plaintiffs have now taken out Notice of Motion No. 1674 of 2009 against the defendant and also the Senior Inspector of Police, Khar Police Station (respondent no. 2) seeking the following relief : “Pending hearing and final disposal of the Suit, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and direct Senior Police Inspector, Khar Police Station, Mumbai 400 052 that is respondent no. 2 not to ask the security guards engaged by the plaintiffs or plaintiff’s agents, servants and representatives to remove themselves from the suit premises.” 4. In support of the above relief, the plaintiffs have in paragraph 7, 8 & 9 of their affidavit-in-support, stated that the police officials of Khar Police Station and Mr. Ajit Sawant, Senior Inspector of Khar Police Station have objected to the security guards being placed to guard the said ground floor of the premises on the pretext that the order passed by Mr. Justice A.V. Nirgude does not specify that the plaintiffs can post security guards for the purpose of guarding the ground floor of the suit premises. From the prima facie observations made in the order of this Court dated 2nd March 2009 and the affidavits now filed by the plaintiffs, it appears that the Police Officers at the Khar Police Station are going out of their way to cause harrasment to the plaintiffs obviously at the instance of the defendants who as recorded herein SKT/- .. 3 .. have not only wrongly taken the law in their hands by forcibly dispossesing the plaintiffs from the ground floor of the suit premises but have also interfered with the administration of justice by obstructing the Court Receiver from implementing the orders passed by this Court. However, since the learned advocate for the respondents states on instructions received from Shri Valmik Kale, Sub Inspector, Khar Police Station, who is present in Court, that the Khar Police Station shall not take any objection if two security guards are posted on the ground floor of the suit premises by the plaintiffs or their agents, servants or representatives, this Court accepts the said statement and is not passing any further orders in the Notice of Motion. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs. (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) SKT/-