( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3643 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3643 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3643 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT NO.4179 OF 2001 SUIT NO.4179 OF 2001 SUIT NO.4179 OF 2001 Housing Development Finance . Corporation Ltd. ...Plaintiffs V/s. Deepak Malhotra & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.G.S. Hegde with Mr.C.M. Lokesh for the Plaintiffs. . Mr.P.N. Patwardhan and Mr.Kanojia for Defendant No.1. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 4th December, 2008. DATED : 4th December, 2008. DATED : 4th December, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Mr.G.S. Hegde for the Plaintiffs. Mr.P.N. Patwardhan for Defendant No.1. 2. In the midst of the hearing of the Notice of Motion, the learned Counsel Mr.Hegde appearing on ( 2 ) behalf of the Plaintiffs, upon instructions from Mrs.Sangita Purandare, Manager (Legal) of the Plaintiffs who is present in the Court, seeks an order so as to see that the Receiver appointed earlier stands discharged without passing of accounts and that liberty should be given to the Plaintiffs to proceed under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 3. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs further submitted that he has no objection if the possession of the suit flat is given to Defendant No.1 after the Court Receiver stands discharged. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that for a reasonable period, Defendant No.1 should be restrained from creating any third party rights and / or parting with possession in respect of the suit flat. 4. Learned Counsel Mr.Patwardhan appearing on behalf of Defendant No.1 submitted that this Court should not pass any order granting liberty to the Plaintiffs to proceed under the said Act. Learned Counsel for Defendant No.1 submitted that he has no objection to put him to terms as regarding not creating third party rights and parting with ( 3 ) possession till reasonable time if Court Receiver is discharged without passing accounts and possession of the suit flat is given to his client as early as possible. 5. After having considered the rival submissions and the point involved since a suggestion is coming from the Plaintiffs themselves that the Court Receiver who was appointed at the instance of the Plaintiffs is sought to be discharged, there is no difficulty in passing that order. Since the Plaintiffs have come to this Court contending that the flat is owned by Defendant No.1, possession of the suit flat must go back to Defendant No.1 after the Court Receiver is discharged. 6. In so far as putting Defendant No.1 to terms as not to create third party rights etc., the submission is fair. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Defendant No.1 can be put to aforesaid terms till 15th April, 2009. 7. In so far as the question of grant of liberty to the Plaintiffs to proceed under the said Act, I am of the view that no such liberty is required to be granted. It is open for the Plaintiffs to attend to the matter as they may be advised. All questions in ( 4 ) connection with the said submission are left open. No views are expressed on the said submission. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order :- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "(1). Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, appointed by this Court in regard to the suit flat is discharged with immediate effect without passing of accounts. (2). The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, shall hand over possession of the suit flat to Defendant No.1 within one week from producing before the Court Receiver authenticated copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar or the P.A. to this Court. (3). Once Defendant No.1 gets possession under this order, Defendant No.1 shall not create third party rights and/or part with possession in regard to the suit flat till 15th April, 2009. ( 5 ) (4). The prayer for grant of liberty to the Plaintiffs to proceed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is not required to be granted. To that extent, the request is declined. It is clarified that the Plaintiffs are free to attend the matter as they may be advised. All questions concerning Plaintiffs’ right to approach a proper forum under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are left open. No views are expressed on merits of the said point. (5). Notice of Motion is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)