1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.38 OF 2010 Kesari Haridas Mali & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Kalpavruksh Developers & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by J.A.Udaypuri & Co for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Narula i/by M/s.Jahangiani Narula & Associates for respondent No.1. Ms.Sheetal Nadkarni i/by S.M.Khaire for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is the original plaintiff and the present petitioners are 3rd to 5th defendants. By the impugned order, a notice of motion taken out by the petitioners has been rejected. There were two prayers in the notice of motion. The first prayer was for dismissing the suit in view of filing of a substantive suit by the 1st respondent in this Court. The second prayer was for directing the Court Receiver to implement order passed by the trial Court on 4th October 2005 which has attained finality. By the said prayer direction was sought against the Court Receiver directing him to put up his board on the suit property and to take possession thereof. By the impugned order, the said notice of motion has been dismissed. 2 2 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as order dated 4th October 2005 has attained finality, the Court Receiver is bound to act upon the said order and implement the said order. He submitted that apart from the fact that the prayer made by the petitioners has been rejected, the impugned order suggests that the report submitted by the Court Receiver for seeking certain directions will not be considered by the trial Court. He submitted that the Court Receiver be directed to forthwith put up a name board on the suit property. 3 I have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that order dated 4th October 2005 passed by the trial Court has attained finality and the said interim order is operating as of today. The learned Court Receiver who is present in the Court has tendered a copy of Court Receiver’s Report No.231 of 2009 dated 23rd July 2009 which is submitted before the trial Court. The report indicates that the Court Receiver is making an effort to implement the aforesaid order. To enable him to implement the order, he has sought certain directions from the trial Court. As the Court Receiver himself has taken steps for implementation of the order dated 4th October 2005, it was not necessary for the trial Court to issue direction to the Court Receiver on the basis of the notice of motion taken out by the petitioners. However, the trial Court will have to expeditiously deal with the said Court Receiver’s Report and issue appropriate directions after hearing the parties. To that extent the impugned order will have to be clarified. Since the report is pending from 23rd July 2009, the trial Court will have to hear the parties and pass appropriate order on the said report within a period of four weeks from 3 today. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have kept a name board of the Court Receiver ready which can be put up by the Court Receiver. 5 The report of the Court Receiver shows that the Court Receiver desires to implement the order of the Court and therefore no such direction can be issued at this stage. 6 As far as first prayer in the notice of motion for dismissal of the suit is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that at this stage they are not pressing the prayer. 7 Hence, the petition is disposed of passing following order: : O R D E R : (a) The trial Court is directed to hear the parties on Court Receiver’s Report No.231 of 2009 and to pass appropriate directions on the said report as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from today. (b) It is made clear that the impugned order does not prevent the trial Court from disposing of the Court Receiver’s Report by issuing appropriate directions. As the order dated 4th October 2005 is in force, the trial Court 4 will have to issue appropriate directions in accordance with law. (c) It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as stay of the proceedings of the suit and the trial will proceed. (d) Subject to clarification made above, the impugned order stands confirmed. (e) The petition is disposed of in above terms. (f) The trial Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.OKA,J)