1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION A. O. NO. 907 OF 2002 M/s. D.V. Kulkarni & ors. ... Appellants VS. Smt. J. D. Ekbote . ... Respondent Mr. Pankaj J. Das for appellants Mr. R.R. Salvi for the respondents – absent. CORAM: D. G. KARNIK J. DATE: 20th November 2006 P.C.: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18th September 2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, appointing Mr. Raje Deshmukh as the receiver of the suit property. 2. The suit property is plot no. 32 in Suryodaya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Ambernath (for short the society”). The respondent is a member of the society and the suit plot was allotted to him on lease for a period of 999 years by the society. By an agreement dated 8th June 1990 the respondent conferred on the appellant no.1 the development rights in respect of the suit property. The respondent thereafter filed a suit against the appellants alleging therein 2 that the suit plot was allotted to him only for residential purpose and therefore the appellants could have constructed only residential building on the suit plot. He alleged that the appellants had constructed commercial premises and alloted the said commercial premises to Sudhir Powle. He therefore prayed for a declaration that the agreement executed by the appellants in favour of Sudhir Powale be declared to be invalid and not binding on the respondent. In the suit the respondent made an application for injunction restraining the appellants from selling or alienating the flats and commercial premises constructed by them on the suit property. By an order dated 17th September 2001 that application was rejected. The respondent has filed an appeal bearing A.O. No. 968 of 2002 challenging the said order. In the suit the respondent also made another application at Exhibit 23 for appointment of court receiver in respect of the suit property. By order dated 18th September 2002 the court allowed the application and appointed Mr. Raje Deshmukh as receiver. That order is impugned in this appeal. 3. I have perused the application for appointment of court receiver. No grounds have been made out in the application for the appointment of the court receiver . All that is pleaded in the application is that the court had passed an order of 3 status quo on 10th August 2001 and the respondent 's application for breach of that order is pending. Then it is alleged that the appellants have started construction of illegal and unauthorized work on the site and no completion certificate is obtained. There are no further averments in the application , except the description of the construction. Surprisingly there is not even a prayer for appointment of the receiver. Except for the title in which it is stated that the application is for appointment of receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, there are no averments in the application why the receiver be appointed and there is not even a prayer for appointment of a receiver. For the purpose of appointment of a receiver, the respondent should have made out a strong case alleging the illegal or unlawful acts on the part of the appellants requiring appointment of a receiver. Nothing of the sort is pleaded. In the circumstances the trial court erred in appointment of the court receiver. 4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. (D.G. KARNIK J.) 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION A. O. NO. 968 OF 2002 M/s. D.V. Kulkarni & ors. ... Appellants VS. Smt. J. D. Ekbote . ... Respondent Mr. Pankaj J. Das for appellants CORAM: D. G. KARNIK J. DATE: 20th November 2006 P.C.: None present for the appellant when called. The appeal is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. (D.G. KARNIK J.)