1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1276 OF 2007 Narottambhai Jyoitaram Patel & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. Mulchandani Vanarsibhai Patel .. Respondent. Mr.S.K.Shinde with Mr.Chetan S.Damare for the petitioners. None for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 21/09/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Nasik in civil misc. appeal no.34 of 2006 by which the said appeal, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. Civil Misc. Appeal was directed against the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nasik, allowing the application at Exhibit-5 filed by the respondent-plaintiffs. That application was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs for an appointment of Court Receiver under Order 40 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) with direction to the court S 2 receiver to take the books of accounts of partnership firm in its custody and submit his report of accounts to the court. The trial Court instead of granting the prayer, appointed the court Commissioner with direction to examine the accounts of the firm and its bank account with United Commercial Branch, Nasik Branch, Nasik. The Court Commissioner was also directed to examine the account of partnership firm and submit the accounts alongwith the report. The petitioner took exception to the order passed by the trial Court by way of civil miscellaneous appeal. The appellate court confirmed the order by dismissing the appeal. It is against this backdrop the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. On 26th February, 2007 this court (A.S.Oka, J.) issued rule and granted stay of the operation and execution of the order dated 30.11.2005 passed on the application at Exhibit-5 in regular civil suit no.222 of 2004. Initially, the stay was for limited period but it was extended from time to time and it operates till today. I have perused the application at Exhibit-5 and it is apparent that the said application was filed under Order 40 of the Code and not under order 26 Rule 11 of the Code. There was no prayer in the application for an appointment of the Court Commissioner. 3. The respondent has chosen not to appear in this petition. In view thereof and considering that the interim order is 3 operating since February, 2007 I find no reason to keep this petition pending any further and I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of regular civil suit no.222 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of this order. The trial Court shall decide the suit on merits in accordance with law and without being influenced by the orders passed in this proceedings arising from the application at Exhibit-5. In this view of the matter the orders impugned in the present writ petition renders ineffective. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. No costs. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)