-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 25 OF 2004 Sociadade Patriotica Dos Baldios Das Novas Conquistas, having its Registered Office at Panaji and represented herein by its Constituted Attorney Shri Joaquim Mascarenhas residing at Sanguem Goa. …... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Smt. Diguelina Fernandes, 2. Jorone Fernandes, 3. Rosy Fernandes, All residing at H. No.178, Uguem, Sanguem, Goa. …... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 2 nd December, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Petition challenges the Order dated 17.11.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Quepem, in Special Execution Application No. 4/2000, whereby prayer clause (b) of the application filed by the Petitioner for Receivership came to be rejected. 2. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed out that the Petitioners were the Decree Holders of the Decree sought to be WP-25-04. -2- executed in the proceedings and as such are entitled for receivership even though the Respondents have filed an application before the Mamlatdar claiming tenancy in respect of the disputed land. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the said aspect, the learned Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that the Petitioners are not entitled for receivership as prayed for. 3. On the other hand, Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has pointed out that the Decree sought to be executed has been passed on the premise that the Petitioners are in possession of the suit property. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the question of appointing any receivership as such does not arise and no interference is called for in the impugned Order. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the impugned Order, I find that the learned Judge has dismissed the application for receivership on the ground that the Decree has been passed in favour of the Petitioners on the ground that they are in possession of the suit property. Hence, the question of appointing any receivership would not arise at all. In case the possession cannot be obtained in view of some interim Order passed by the learned Mamlatdar, the prayer would have to be considered by the learned Judge after such Order stands vacated by the concerned Court. In such circumstances, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim receivership of the disputed land. Considering the material on record, I find that there is no error of jurisdiction committed by the learned Judge rejecting the application for receivership. Hence, no interference is called for in the WP-25-04. -3- above Petition and the same is dismissed. 5. At this stage, Shri Pangam, learned Counsel, pointed out that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to amounts in respect of the income accrued to the Respondents during the pendency of the Execution Proceedings. 6. Considering that this aspect was not agitated before the Court below, it would be appropriate that the Petitioner be given liberty to file an appropriate application and the same shall be dealt with by the learned Judge in accordance with law. 7. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule stands discharged. F .M. REIS, J. arp/* WP-25-04.