IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 389 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2008 SHRI NAMDEO VISHNU SALGAOKAR ALIAS JOAO AUGUSTO CARDOZO (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus SHRI. SUBHASH V. VELINGKAR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. J.E.Coelho Perreira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Korgaonkar,Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.N.S.Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr.H. D. Naik,Advocate for the respondent No.1. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 19th November, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. J.E.Coelho Perreira, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. By this application, the applicants seek appointment of Receiver in respect of suit premises consisting of first floor on the suit building and the garage which according to the plaintiffs, was in possession of original defendants. By the order dated 06.09.1996 passed in Appeal from Order No.71/1996, this Court appointed both the respondents as the Receivers in respect of first floor and the garage. The suit has been dismissed after the said order was passed. The respondent No.2, thereafter, expired in the year 1997. The Trial Court by decree dated 30.01.2008 dismissed the suit filed by the appellants herein. 3. Mr. J.E.Coelho Perreira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the respondent No.1, who continues to be in possession of first floor and the garage, be appointed as the receiver in respect of the above referred premises. The prayer has been opposed by Mr. Nadkarni,learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 on the ground that this Court by order dated 06.09.1996 had appointed both the respondents and in view of the death of the respondent No.2 in the year 1997, the suit as against the respondent No.2/ defendant No.2, has abated since his legal representatives have not been brought on record. He, therefore, submitted that this is not fit case for appointment of the respondent No.1 as Receiver in respect of the above referred premises. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the order passed by this Court dated 06.09.1996 in Appeal From Order No.71/1996, it would be just and proper to appoint respondent No.1 as Receiver in respect of the above referred premises. This appointment is without prejudice to the rights and contentions taken on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the appeal itself is not maintainable since the defendant No.2 expired during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the entire suit has abated. I do not deem it necessary to deal with the said objection at this stage and all the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent No.1, are kept open. The application stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA