1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 03 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO. 03 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO. 03 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 04 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO. 04 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO. 04 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 889 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITIOON NO. 3 OF 2008 Mr. Kanyalal N. Joshi & Ors. ... Petitioners (Org. Appellants/ Defendants) Versus M/s. Arpit Builders & Developers & Anr. Respondents (Org. Plaintiff & Defendant No.5). Mr. Owen Menezes, Advocate, i/b. Mr. R.S.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Anil C.Singh i/b. Mr. Sandesh D. Patil, Advocates, for Resondents. REVIEW PETITION NO. 4 OF 2008 Smt. Hirabai Shinvar Jadhav, deceased through her legal heirs & 2 representatives & others. .. Review Petitioners Versus M/s. Arpit Builders & Developers Respondents Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar with Mr. Shailendra S.Kanetkar, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Anil C. Singh i/b. Mr. Sandesh D. Patil, Advocates for the respondents. Mr. Suhas M. Oak, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 11th April,2008. DATE: 11th April,2008. DATE: 11th April,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. After hearing the parties in the Appeal from Order No.889 of 2007, this Court passed an order dated 4th February, 2008 and taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case and the fight between the two developers, this Court directed to appoint the Court Receiver to take possession of the suit property. Certain other directions were also given for early hearing and disposal of the suits. 2. Review Petition No.3 of 2008 is filed by the appellants therein and the Review Petition No.4 of 2008 3 is filed by the L.Rs. of the deceased Hirabai, who was admittedly the owner of the suit land. It is contended on behalf of the applicant in Review Petition No.4 of 2008 that they were not parties to the suit and the Receiver has been appointed without giving opportunity of hearing to them and thus, they have been deprived of possession of the property. Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel for the revie petitioners contends that the Receiver could not have been appointed particularly when the owner of the property is not impleaded as a party in the suit and in support of this he relied upon Ritona Consultancy Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. vs. Lohia Jute Ritona Consultancy Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. vs. Lohia Jute Ritona Consultancy Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. vs. Lohia Jute Press and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC Press and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC Press and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC as well as the observations in para 19 in Pohla Singh alias Pohla Ram (D) by LRS and Pohla Singh alias Pohla Ram (D) by LRS and Pohla Singh alias Pohla Ram (D) by LRS and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Others (2004)6 SCC 126. Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Others (2004)6 SCC 126. Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Others (2004)6 SCC 126. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.246 of 2007 makes a statement that the plaintiffs have already made an application impleading the owners of the land, while the learned Counsel for the review petitioner states that as per the instructions given to him, no such application is made as yet. If such an application is made, the learned trial Court shall allow that application and if such an application is not so far made, the plaintiffs shall file such an application before the trial Court within one week from this day and the trial Court shall allow that application. 4 3. In view of the fact that the review petitioners do not claim to be in possession of the property and the two developers claim to be in possession of the same on the basis of the agreement with them,I find that by the appointment of the Receiver, the review petitioners are not being affected in any manner. Therefore merely because these review petitioners were not made parties, no prejudice has been caused to them. 4. The learned Counsel for the review petitionerin Review Petition No.3 of 2008, who as the original appellant, contends that in view of the authorities of the Supreme Court in Mahendra H. Patel vs. Ram Narayan Mahendra H. Patel vs. Ram Narayan Mahendra H. Patel vs. Ram Narayan Singh (2000) 9 SCC 190 and (1999) 2 SCC 377, Shree Jain Singh (2000) 9 SCC 190 and (1999) 2 SCC 377, Shree Jain Singh (2000) 9 SCC 190 and (1999) 2 SCC 377, Shree Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid (S) vs. Phundan Singh and Swetambar Terapanthi Vid (S) vs. Phundan Singh and Swetambar Terapanthi Vid (S) vs. Phundan Singh and Others Others Others as well as the authority of the this Court in his Court in his Court in Sheela Arora vs. Madan Mohan (2007) 5 Mh.L.J 849 Sheela Arora vs. Madan Mohan (2007) 5 Mh.L.J 849 Sheela Arora vs. Madan Mohan (2007) 5 Mh.L.J 849 this Court could not appoint the Court Receiver particularly when there was no application from any of the parties for appointment of Court Receiver. On perusal of the order in appeal, I find that the appointment of Receiver was required to be made taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to protect the property. I see no substance to recall that order. 5. In the result, both the Review Petitions stand rejected. 5 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)