IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2008 NO. 34 OF 2008 NO. 34 OF 2008 IN IN IN COURT COURT COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.61 OF 2007 RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.61 OF 2007 RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.61 OF 2007 IN IN IN CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 51 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO. 51 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO. 51 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 4913 OF 2000 NO. 4913 OF 2000 NO. 4913 OF 2000 Anwar Sattar Oomerbhoy ] .. Appellant Versus 1. Majid Ahmedbhai & 6 ors. ] .. Respondents Mr. A.N. Maniyar for the appellant. Ms. Manjiri Shah i/b M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the respondent No.1. Ms. Shoma Maitra i/b Desai Desai & Currimjee for the respondent No.2. Mr. K.L. Vyas, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, present. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & R.V. MORE, JJ. DATED: 11TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. : 1. This is an appeal by the agent of the Court Receiver who has no locus in the matter. On the contrary, as a result of his obstruction, the execution directed by this court has been delayed and the Architect is required to visit the premises again and again for which the Architect’s fees is mounting. : 2 : 3. Now, the Court Receiver has received the plan from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai showing the demarcation of the flats which were approved by the Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, flat No.2A shall be segregated with the help of M/s. Nadkarni & Co., Architect as directed by the court below. 4. The appeal is without any substance and it is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE, J.] MORE, J.] MORE, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]