1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No.1340 of 2007 In Suit No.1409 of 1976 Rajkumari Radheshyam Goenka & ors. .. .. Plaintiffs v/s. Nirmalkumar P. Rungta & ors. .. .. Defendants Mr.J.S . Chandnani for Defendant Nos.1A to 1B. Mr.E.P . Bharucha, Senior Counsel with Mr.Shailesh Shah, Ms. M.S. Sadh and Mr.Y. Shah for Plaintiffs. ------ CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 11 th June, 2008 P.C. : 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out 32 years after the filing of the Suit, and after much water has flown, for appointment of Court Receiver. It is stated on behalf of the Plaintiffs that there are various tenants in the suit premises and several of these tenancies have been transferred. Hence, the Plaintiffs pray for appointment of Court Receiver. In the earlier Application, injunction order has been passed against the Defendants. Despite the order of injunction, certain tenancies were transferred. Contempt Applications have been taken out for contempt of the order of this Court as well as the Supreme Court. In an earlier Application, an order for committing Defendants 1A and 1B to civil prison has been 2 passed and they have been directed to pay certain fine. That order has been challenged in Appeal. The order committing Defendants 1A and 1B to civil prison has been stayed in Appeal. They have paid the fine. 2. Upon the premise that this prima facie shows their conduct, the Plaintiffs have sought now to appoint the Court Receiver in respect of the suit premises. 3. Since the Suit has remained on board for 32 years and consequently, several tenancies in the suit premises have been transferred from time to time, it is considered most apt that parties proceed with the Suit itself. 4. Consequently, the parties were directed to bring draft issues so that the Court would frame issues. The Defendants tender the draft issues. The Plaintiffs do not. The Plaintiffs contend that there were other litigations between the parties and that Suit Nos.1420 of 1979 and 114 of 1980 must proceed first as per certain prior orders. Though those two Suits are required to proceed, nothing prevents the Plaintiffs from proceeding with this Suit also. The Plaintiffs are not prepared to proceed and have not brought the draft issues to Court. It is seen that the Plaintiffs themselves are not desirous of prosecuting the Suit with the greatest expedition 3 as required. Consequently, no case for appointment of Court Receiver is made out and the Court Receiver need not be appointed. 5. In fact, the Defendants contend that the Defendants have prosecuted litigations against the parties to whom tenancies have been transferred without the consent of the Plaintiffs or the Defendants as the owners. Several Suits have been filed in the Court of Small Causes. The Defendants have produced a list showing the stage of those Suits. Since those Suits are for eviction, they would reach hearing in the normal course. There is no reason to grant them expedition over other Suits in those Courts. 6. No case for appointment of Court Receiver is made out in this Notice of Motion, upon seeing the conduct of the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendants. The Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 7. There are 27 Suits between the parties. The parties state that each of them are dependent upon consideration of the Terms of Settlement dated 15 th March 1978. All the evidence with regard to the Terms of Settlement in all the 27 Suits cannot be duplicated or recorded again and again. 4 8. I am told that in 5 of these 27 Suits, issues have been framed. The Advocates state that all the Suits have been assigned to this Court. All the Suits shall, therefore, come up on the Board together on 21 st July 2008 . [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.]