1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1589 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 2208 OF 1987 Lachmandas B.Makhija and Anr. ...Appellants Vs. Ms.Janki B.Makhija and Ors. ...Respondents .... Mr.H.K.Vazirani along with Pushpa Goswami for Appellants Mr.Rakesh Dave along with Anil Chauhan i/b N.N.Vaishnawa and Co. for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 26th FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1 This Motion taken out by the appellants, raised following substantive reliefs: (a) that this Honourable Court be pleased to pass an order of clarification as required by the trial Court as to the 2 grounds of reliefs on the Chamber Summons No.282 of 2008 in Execution Application No. 332 of 2007 in Suit No. 2208 of 1987 which order was passed by the trial Court on 31.3.2008; (b) that this Honourable Court be pleased to pass an order of stay of execution of the further proceedings of the Decree and/or Judgment dated 4.10.2006 passed by the trial Court in Suit No. 2208 of 1987; ” 2 So far as the relief in prayer clause (a) is concerned, this Court while admitting the appeal on 15th November, 2006 clearly stated that in view of the order that was operating during the pendency of the suit shall continue to remain operative until disposal of the appeal. We are informed across the bar that during the pendency of the suit, the Court Receiver was appointed only in respect of the commercial premises which formed part of the suit property. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even the residential premises which are also part of the suit property are required to be covered by the said order inasmuch as the Court Receiver should be appointed for the residential premises as well. Having regard to the order passed on 15th November, 2006, such clarification cannot be given. 3 3 So far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, it is clear from the records that Notice of Motion No. 1233 of 2007 was taken out by the applicants for the very same relief and the Motion has been dismissed on 15th June, 2007. 4 The Decree Holder has initiated execution proceedings in respect of the residential premises for which the Court Receiver has not been appointed and therefore, it appears, to defeat the execution proceedings, this Notice of Motion has been taken out. Once, this Court has rejected the prayer to stay the execution of the further proceedings of the decree and/or judgment dated 4th October, 2006 passed by the trial Court in Suit No. 2208 of 1987, the second application for the same prayer, need not be entertained when the very same prayer was rejected by a reasoned order and if the appellants are not satisfied by the reasons set out, their remedy would be somewhere else. 5 Hence, the Motion is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. ]