1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.458 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.848 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.459 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.848 OF 2009 Anand Dattaram Matkar .... Applicant Vs. Gawade Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri Kishor Patil i/b S.S. Redij for the Applicant. Shri A.S. Karwande for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 23, 2010 P.C: 1. Since both these applications concern the same property, both are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Advocate for the applicant in Civil Application No.458 of 2010 states that possession has been taken by the Court Receiver 2 in view of the interim order passed in this civil application. In that situation, prayer (a) does not survive. In so far as prayer (b) is concerned, it is the case of respondent No.1 that the parties had agreed that amenities were to be put in place by the present applicant and for this purpose rebate of Rs.50,000/- was offered. The Advocate for respondent No.1 in this application states that the amenities, as initially mentioned in the agreement, have been carried out. In this view of the matter, prayer (b) does not survive. Civil Application No.458 of 2010 is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. 3. In so far as Civil Application No.459 of 2010, filed by respondent No.1 is concerned, the main prayer which is pressed is for a direction to the Court Receiver is to take inventories of the amenities executed in Flat No.501. In my view, prayer (d) in this application can be granted. The Court Receiver to take inventory of the amenities executed in Flat No.501 and as mentioned in the suit agreement dated 16-6-2005. The respondent No. 1, on whose behalf the present application is filed, is directed to deposit in this Court an amount of Rs.10,000/- within a period of one 3 week to cover the valuer's fees. The amount directed to be deposited will be subject to adjustment as and when the bill is received. It is, however, made clear that since the said flat is already in the possession of the Court Receiver, the requirement of valuation will not come in the way of the Court Receiver from proceeding further in the matter of handing over possession to the appellant as per the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 16-12-2009. It is also made clear that in so far as the occupation certificate is concerned, respondent No.1 in Civil Application No.459 of 2010 will make an application for issuance of occupation certificate within a period of three weeks from today. If no such application is made within the said period, the Court Receiver will be entitled to make an application in this regard. The possession to be handed over to the appellant in accordance with law and subject to completion of all the requisite formalities. 4. It is made clear that the parties are at liberty to raise all the contentions regarding the quantum of royalty before the Court Receiver. 4 5. Both the civil applications accordingly stand disposed of. R.S. MOHITE, J.