:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1660 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1660 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1660 OF 2008 IN IN IN FIRST APPEAL NO.593 OF 200 FIRST APPEAL NO.593 OF 200 FIRST APPEAL NO.593 OF 2002 Shri Prabhudayal Kanhayalal Khandelwal ...Applicant. v. Shri Nivrutti Ganapatrao Gavare & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.G.S.Godbole , adv. for the Applicant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 22nd September, 2008. DATE: 22nd September, 2008. DATE: 22nd September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Godbole the learned counsel for the Applicant. Applicant, who is original plaintiff and in whose favour decree for specific performance of the contract has been passed, had filed civil application no.2886 of 2005 seeking certain reliefs. By order dated 5th August, 2005 prayer clause (a) was allowed to implead respondent no.6 in the first appeal. Ad-interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clauses (e) and (g) whereby respondent, i.e., the original defendant and added respondent were restrained from changing nature or carrying on construction of any nature on the suit land and as per prayer clause (g), they were also restrained from creating third party interest. Of-course these prayers were in respect of protection till the decision of the application. By order dated 13th February, 2008, the said order was confirmed and the application was disposed off. Infact, that indicates that the relief :2: claimed by the plaintiff/applicant in prayer clause (b) and (d) was infact allowed. Mr.Godbole the learned counsel for the applicant states that in prayer clause (c), applicant had sought appointment of receiver and that order has not been passed. According to him, when the order dated 13th February, 2008 was passed, advocate for the applicant was not present and this could not be pointed out. After hearing the learned counsel, I find that in view of the protection given to him by the ad-interim order, which was confirmed on 13th February, 2008, interest of the plaintiff/appellant is fully protected and there is no need to appoint receiver. 2. Therefore, this application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)