-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Court Receiver’s Report No.442 of 2008 in Suit No.3274 of 1993 1. Anjana Naresh Motwani and another ..Plaintiffs vs. 1. Fina Jawahar Shah & ors. ..Defendants Shri A.R.Patil for plaintiffs. Shri S.K.Chaurasia i/b Shri A.M.Saraogi for defendants. Shri K.L.Vyas, Court Receiver present. Shri G.G.Ketkar, 1st Asstt.to Court Receiver present. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 12th January, 2009 January, 2009 January, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1, The plaintiffs have filed this suit for a declaration that the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and defendant nos. 1, 3 to 5 and defendant nos. 2 and 6 to 8 have 1/4th share in the estate of deceased Thakorelal S.Shah and Hansaben T. Shah as more particularly described in Exh.C to the plaint. By order dated 7th September, 1993 passed in Notice of Motion No.1918 of 1993 the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay was appointed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the draft Notice of Motion and the Court Receiver was directed to allow the defendants to continue -2- in occupation of the properties and land referred to in prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the said notice of motion without any compensation and security as agents of the Court Receiver. 2. The said suit was dismissed on 9th July, 1998 in default. The Receiver was informed about the dismissal of the suit by the Advocate for the plaintiffs in the meeting held on 19th July, 2008 in the Court Receiver’s office. The Court Receiver has,therefore, submitted his report seeking directions as under: a) The Court Receiver, High Court be discharged in the above matter subject to payment of the Receiver’s costs, charges and expenses. b) Any other directions this Hon’ble court may be deem fit and proper; c) That the cost of this Report may please be awarded in the sum of Rs.1000/- and be directed to lcome out of the funds in the hands of the Court Receiver as Receiver herein. -3- 3. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs Mr.A.R.Patil appears before this Court and states that he has taken out the Notice of Motion i.e. after the copy of the Court Receiver’s report was served on the plaintiffs for restoration of the suit which was dismissed more than 10 years back. Though the Advocate for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs came to know of dismissal of the suit only in July, 2008, he has no explanation to offer as to why no proceedings were taken out in the last six months for restoration of the said suit. Only reason that he gives is that he was trying to trace the earlier Advocate who is not traceable till date. The approach of the plaintiffs in handling the litigation appears to be indifferent and callous and it is clear beyond doubt that the plaintiffs were not interested in prosecuting the suit and hence did not bother to find out in the last 10 years as to what was the status of the suit nor have they obviously attempted to contact their Advocate who the plaintiff now says is untraceable. In view thereof the Court Receiver is required to be discharged in the above matter subject to payment of Receiver’s costs, charges and expenses. Court Receiver’s report is allowed in -4- terms of prayer clauses a and c. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)