1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 132 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 3901 OF 1991 Bharati M. Shah .. Plaintiff V/s M/s Sindhwa Developers .. Defendant And Shreechand Lunia .. Applicant Mr. Gautam Patel i/b L.C. Tolat & Co. for the plaintiff. Mr. V.R. Dhond i/b Tripathi & Co. for the applicant. Mrs. U.S. Srivastava, Third Assistant to Court Receiver, present. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 6TH JULY 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the appearing parties. 2. By this report, the Receiver has sought a direction of the Court as to whom possession of shop nos.11 and 12 situated at Anant Road and Kasturba Road near Malad Railway Crossing be handed over. The Receiver has also sought a direction as to whom possession of shop nos.15, 21 and 22 2 situated in the very property be handed over. 3. Counsel for the parties submitted that Suit No.3901 of 1991 in which the present Receiver’s report has been submitted, relates only to shop no.11 and therefore the report should be considered only for shop no.11. This order shall cover only shop no.11, which is hereinafter referred to as “the said shop”. 4. By an order dated 13th December 1991, the Court appointed the Court Receiver as an ad-interim receiver in respect of the said shop. On 19th December 1991, when the Receiver went to the site for taking possession of the said shop, he noticed that the shop was locked and nobody was present in the shop. Accordingly, the Receiver took possession of the shop by putting his seal on the existing locks of the shutter. Thereafter the present applicant Shreechand Lunia, who was not a party to the suit, came forward and claimed that he was in possession of the said shop and that his goods were lying inside the shop. He approached the Court for permission to take his goods out from the said shop. By an order dated 1st April 1992, this Court allowed the applicant to take the goods out of the said shop. The Receiver accordingly allowed the applicant to take out the goods. The applicant thereafter took out a motion (Notice of Motion No.1766 of 2002) for giving possession of shop no.11 to him. By an order dated 4th July 2005, this Court directed the Receiver to hand over the possession of the shop no.11 to him. 3 The original plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order. By an order dated 26th March 2009, the Division Bench while allowing the appeal passed an order discharging the Court Receiver and directed the Receiver to submit a report to the Court as to whom the possession of the said shop should be handed over. Accordingly, the Receiver has filed the present report. 5. Present applicant was not a party to the suit. Initially, the Receiver was appointed without hearing the applicant. According to the applicant, he was in possession of the shop when the Receiver was appointed. His contention is supported by the fact that his goods were found in the shop as also the keys to the locks of shutter were in his possession. Therefore, it must be held that the applicant was in possession of the said shop and the Receiver had taken possession of the shop from him. As the Receiver has been discharged, the Receiver must hand over possession to the applicant from whom the possession was taken. Accordingly, the Receiver is directed to hand over the suit shop no.11 to the applicant Mr. Lunia. 6. After this order was pronounced in the open court, learned counsel for the parties submit that the facts in Suit No.3903 of 1991 in respect of shop no.12 are identical and the order be made applicable to shop no.12 also. Directed accordingly. 7. As regards the prayer for charges/expenses incurred by the Receiver so 4 far, the Receiver shall submit the accounts whereafter the issue of charges/ expenses will be considered. 8. At the request of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the operation of this order is stayed for a period of 6 weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)