*1* 1.caa.235.11 ao1007.10 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 235 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1007 OF 2010 Pakash Vasant Rele & Ors. ..Applicants -Versus- Rajesh Dilip Rajpurkar & Anr. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Ramesh Soni a/w. Mr.Pankaj S. Sutar, Mr.Kuldeep U. Nikam i/by Khaitan & Jayakar Sud & Vohra for the Applicants. Mr.Ranveer Shekhawat for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8, 10 to 12 & 14 to 16. .......... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 By way of the present application, the applicants have prayed for directing the appellant/original defendants to remove the lock on the suit room so to enable the plaintiffs to make use of the same. The applicants have in the alternative prayed for appointment of an officer of this Court as Court Commissioner and in the alternative to appoint the Court Receiver. 2 It is the contention of the applicants that the appellants by taking *2* 1.caa.235.11 ao1007.10 disadvantage of the order passed by this Court dated 24th January 2011, have put the lock on the suit room and thereby disobeying the status-quo order. 2 While considering the civil application for interim relief during the pendency of the appeal, vide order dated 24th January 2011, I have specifically observed that prima facie it appears that it is the appellants who are in possession of the suit premises, in as much as the learned trial Court itself has recorded that most of the rent receipts and electricity bills are in possession of the defendant/appellant. It was further observed from the cause title itself that the residential address of the plaintiff except plaintiff nos. 12 to 13 are other than the suit property. It is also not in dispute that though the addresses of plaintiff nos. 12 to 13 is given as the suit property both of them are residing in the United State of America. 3 The said order was passed after hearing the parties at length. The appellant no.1 has filed an affidavit-in-reply stating therein that the deponent is residing in the suit property along with his family and that he does not have any other room or premises in Mumbai. Though the said position is disputed by the applicants, no counter-affidavit is filed in that regard. *3* 1.caa.235.11 ao1007.10 4 In that view of the matter, I do not find that the case is made out for entertaining the application, the same is rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ]