1 caw175-76-08 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 175 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.176 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4696 OF 2002 The Vaishya Sahakari Bank Ltd. .. Applicant V/s. M/s. Kalpana Art Studio & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. N. N. Bhadrashete for the applicant. Mr. V. C. Ghosalkar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. By interim order passed in the writ petition, this Court has appointed the Special Recovery Officer as the receiver of the Gala No. A-205 and A-305 more particularly described in the prayer. The writ petition is pending in this Court. These two applications have been filed by the applicant-Bank by pointing out that there are two more recovery certificates issued against the concerned respondents and the applicant desires to proceed against the said two Galas in execution of the said recovery certificates. The learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents submitted that the recovery certificates referred to in the applications are not the subject matter of the 2 caw175-76-08 writ petition. The orders impugned the writ petition arise out of another recovery certificate. His submission is that the concerned respondents have already paid the entire amount due and payable under the two other recovery certificates and, therefore, the relief prayed for in these applications cannot be granted. He placed reliance of order passed by this Court in Civil Application No.3049 of 2004 on 20th April, 2007. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant is not entitled to any relief. 2. I have perused the order dated 20th April, 2007 passed in Civil Application No.3029 of 2004. The scope of the present application is completely different. The contention of the applicant is that they are holding two other recovery certificates against the concerned respondents which are not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. As this Court has appointed a Court Receiver in respect of the Galas, the applicant is seeking leave to execute the recovery certificates by proceeding against the said two Galas. The issues whether the applicant is entitled to execute the said recovery certificates and whether the respondents have paid the entire amount payable under the recovery certificates need not be gone into these applications. The applicant is required to seek leave as the two Galas are custodia legis. Leave deserves to be granted to the 3 caw175-76-08 applicant to proceed against the said two Galas in execution of the recovery certificates. Whether the applicant can execute the recovery certificates by attaching the said Galas is an issue which will have to be decided in appropriate proceedings and all contentions in that behalf raised by first and second respondents on merits are expressly kept open. 3. Hence, leave is granted to the applicant to move the Special Recovery Officer for execution of the recovery certificates by proceeding against Gala Nos. A-205 and A-305. Applications are accordingly allowed. 4. The issue whether the entire amount under recovery certificates is paid or not and the issue whether the recovery certificates can be executed by proceeding against the said two Galas are expressly kept open. It will be open for the respondents to raise appropriate objections before the Special Recovery Officer. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays for stay of operation of this order. There is no prejudice to the respondents if leave is granted to the applicant. Hence, the said prayer is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)