1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1384 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.89 OF 2007 PANKAJ PRANLAL DOSHI ..PLAINTIFF VS. JYOTISNABEN PRANLAL DOSHI & ANR ..DEFENDANTS Ms.Rita Bhatia for the Plaintiff. M/s. Nandlal Kothari & Sabir for the Defendant CORAM: SMT ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 10th February, 2009 P.C.: 1.The Plaintiff's Advocate states that the Advocate on record seeks discharge. He states that an email has been sent to the Plaintiff. He has no copy of the email. Hence the Plaintiff' s Advocate cannot be allowed to be discharged. 2.The ad-interim order dated 20.04.2007 passed in this Notice of Motion shows that this Notice of Motion was directed to be heard alongwith Notice of Motion No.223 of 2007. Notice of Motion No.223 of 2007 has been disposed of on 02.02.2009. 2 The Advocate on record of the Plaintiff had appeared on that date. The directions that both the notices of motions should be listed for hearing together and reply therein was directed to be filed was not brought to the notice of the court. Defendant No.2 appeared in person. He also did not notify the court of that order. 3.The suit is in respect of the estate of the deceased father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2. Each of the moveable and immoveable properties left by the father in respect which the Will of the father is probated came to considered. The case for appointment of Court Receiver or injunction was seen not to have been made out. 4.It may be mentioned that it is for the Plaintiff to make such inquiries to obtain such evidence to prove the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff and ultimately his case. 5.This Notice of Motion is for appointment of commissioner to make detailed inquiry and report on the sale or disbursement of the sale proceeds and moveables forming the properties and assets of the deceased father of the parties. 6.In the order dated 02.02.2009 the present position with regard to immoveable and moveable properties has been set 3 out. It came to be seen by this court that the Plaintiff himself would be required to make inquiries about the investments of his father in the banks and limited companies which forms a part of the estate of his father and apply to court for directions as required after full information is obtained by the Plaintiff. It also came to be seen by the court that the immoveable property left by father which is an open plot has not been sold. In fact the Plaintiff himself applied for sub-division of the plot. It also came to be seen by the court that the residential flat in which the Plaintiff claims his share stands in the name of Defendant No.1, the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 and hence that does not form part of the estate of the deceased. 7. Upon such case the order for instituting the inquiry with regard to “ disbursement of sale proceeds and moveables” is not called for. 8.Hence there shall be no order on the Notice of Motion. No order as to costs. (Smt Roshan Dalvi, J)