1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2004 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2337 OF 2002 IN SUIT NO. 2902 OF 2002 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2366 OF 2004 Smt.Hansaben widow of Jagjivandas Panchal and Anr. ..Appellants Vs. M/s.Dattani Constructions, Mumbai and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Shailesh Shah alongwith Prashant i/b Zohair and Co. for Appellants Mr.Rajiv Narula i/b Jhangiani Narula & Associates for Respondents .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 26th FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1 This Appeal is directed against the order dated 5th August, 2004 thereby dismissing the Notice of Motion No. 2337 of 2002 filed in Summary Suit No. 2902 of 2002. The prayer for temporary injunction as well as for appointment of Court Receiver, was declined. 2 We are now informed that the suit building i.e. suit industrial 2 building is completed and Occupation Certificates are awaited. However, the Plaintiffs dispute this position. 3 Even if the building is substantially completed, the prayer for temporary injunction need not be considered at this point of time. The dispute between the parties is on the number of industrial Galas to be handed over to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled for 24 Galas whereas the Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs are entitled for 14 Galas and the Defendants are ready to hand over 14 Galas. Therefore, at this stage, there may be a case for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of some Galas and such prayer can be considered more appropriately by taking out a fresh Motion in the pending suit. 4 Hence, Appeal is disposed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the learned trial Judge with a fresh Notice of Motion. We make it clear that the rights and contentions of both the parties on merits are left open. 5 Refund of Court fees if any, shall be as per the Rules. 6 Motion No. 2366 of 2004 does not survive as not pressed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. ]