: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.380 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1489 OF 2006 Sheela A. Chavan & Ors. .. Plaintiffs v/s. Manohar S. Chavan & Ors. .. Defendants ......... Mr. A.G. Damle for the plaintiffs Ms. S.A. Dhamale for the defendants in support of NMS. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 17th JUNE, 2010. P.C. : 1. This motion is taken out by the defendant no.1 for reduction of the Royalty amount fixed by the Receiver, pursuant to order dated 19th December, 2008. The Receiver has fixed the Royalty at Rs. 41,500/- per month. The defendant no.1 wants that the Royalty should be fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month. Parties herein have completed the pleadings. Additional affidavit dated 2nd March, 2009 is also filed. It is to be noted that the defendant no.1 has admitted : 2 : that the defendant no.1 is in possession of the Hall. It is being let out by defendant no.1 to various customers on day to day basis on payment of necessary charges. In a situation like this, it was necessary for defendant no.1 to bring on record appropriate materials to show that by running the said Hall, defendant no.1 is earning a particular amount at least on an average basis that is to say defendant no.1 was required to file before the Court necessary documents to show the earnings from the various customers, expenses incurred and other related aspects. If these materials would have been before the Court, surely, the Court would have been able to go through the same and arrive at a figure and decide whether the quantum, ordered to be paid by the Receiver, was on the higher side. The Receiver has proceeded to fix the Royalty by taking concept of ownership. In the affidavits which are coming from the defendant no.1, no such materials is placed before the Court. In the absence of such a materials, it would be unsafe to arrive at a particular figure as it is likely to cause injustice to defendant no.1 or the plaintiffs. In view of this, I am inclined to dismiss this notice of motion by observing that in the absence of adequate material, the request of : 3 : defendant no.1 cannot be granted. At the same time, liberty will have to be given to defendant no.1 to take out a fresh Motion, if so desired, by placing before the Court appropriate materials. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) In the absence of appropriate materials, the Court is not able to decide the point raised by defendant no.1. Hence, the motion is disposed of. (ii) It is clarified that defendant no1. is free to take out a fresh motion for the same reliefs by placing before the Court appropriate materials. Till further orders, defendant no.1 shall continue to pay the Royalty amount as is fixed by the Receiver namely Rs.41,500/-. (iii) It is further clarified that if the request of defendant no.1 is granted for reduction of the Royalty amount, necessary credit shall be given to defendant no.1. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)