NMS659-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.659 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.496 OF 2010 Jethalal P. Bhanushali .. Plaintiff Versus Rajiv Gosar & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.J.S.Kini i/b.Suresh Dubey for plaintiff CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19th November 2010. P.C.: 1] Heard Mr.Kini for plaintiff. Perused with his assistance the plaint, annexures thereto and affidavit in reply. 2] Bearing in mind that the plaintiff claims to have purchased the shop from defendant No.2 who in turn has acquired it from defendant No.1. But, thereafter, the defendant No.1 claims to have sold it to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who are none other than his wife and son so also the property further changing hands from defendant Nos. 3 and 4 NMS659-10 2 to defendant Nos. 5 to 7, interest of justice would be served if the motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) at this stage. 3] Mr.Kini applies for appointment of Court Receiver and particularly on account of the contents of the complaint to the police and the statements recorded. Mr.Kini submits that the plaintiff has been forcibly dispossessed and in any event, if the property is allowed to be occupied and used by defendant Nos. 5 to 7without any payment of compensation that would mean putting a premium on their illegal acts. However, defendants and their Advocates are absent. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty to the plaintiff to apply for this relief so also seek payment of monthly compensation from these defendants. Reserving this liberty the motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)