FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Appeal Against Order No. 87/09 [ Dhirubhai s/o Bapalal Thakkar Vs. Arvindbhai s/o Bapalal Thakkar and others ] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.R. DONGAONKAR J. DATED : JULY 29, 2009. Heard Miss Mugdha Atre, Advocate holding for Advocate Shri Parchure, for petitioner & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 2. The appellants are challenging the order passed by 3rd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur below Ex.72 in Special Civil Suit No.7/2001. 2. The appellant original plaintiff herein claimed temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code to restrain the defendant No.4 from renewing license No.34 of M/s Shriram Timber Supply Company, Ballarpur. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that such injunction cannot be granted. It appears that the appellant had made oral request to appoint receiver in the subject matter, that was also rejected. This appeal is to challenge that order. 4. The Counsel for the appellant has admitted that interim order had to be passed. The appointment of receiver could be made by the Court even on oral request. 4. As against this the learned Counsel for the respondents stated that the license in favour of the defendant has been already renewed by respondent No.4 and therefore, purpose can be served if the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit between parties by the end of November, 2009. 5. Considering the submission of the learned Counsel for parties, it is difficult to find infirmity in the order of the learned trial Court. No doubt the application for appointment of receiver can be moved. In the circumstance of the case such oral request cannot be permitted. Even now, by filing Civil Application No.87/2009 the appellant has not preferred the appointment of receiver much less there is no ground sufficient for appointment of receiver by the Court suo moto. 6. Considering circumstances of the case and fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are real brothers. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit between the parties as early as possible in any circumstances before 30th November, 2009. Needless to order that parties shall co-operate by not seeking any adjournment. A.O. stands disposed of. JUDGE PMA