: 1 : CRR-151-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 151 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 3433 OF 2007 Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. .. Plaintiffs v/s. Pillai Tulsidharan Neelkant & Ors. .. Defendants ......... Mr. Jyoti Sinha a/w Savita Kundar for the plaintiffs Mr. R.V. Bansode for third party Mr. B.K. Barve for GIC Housign Finance Ltd. Mr. N.A. Bandodkar, IInd Asstt. to Court Receiver ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 15th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. Barve learned Counsel on behalf of the GIC Housing Finance Ltd. states that his clients are entitled to sell Flat No.B/102, Meeru CHS Ltd. Sector 2, Vasant Nagari, Vasai (E), Dist. Thane – 401 202 in accordance with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It is noted that the GIC has taken over the possession of the said flat No. B/102 under Section 13 (4) of the said Act way back on 9th : 2 : CRR-151-10=.sxw November, 2005. Receiver came to be appointed on 31st July, 2008. In my view, merely because this Court has appointed Court Receiver in this Suit, the sale of Flat No. B/102 cannot be stopped if the said sale is being conducted in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, party who is interested in having said Flat No. B/102 sold by following the provisions of law is free to do so. Appointment of Receiver in respect of Flat No. B/102 will not come in the way of said sale. If the plaintiffs are interested in putting up their claim to have repayment of the amount which was advanced by the plaintiffs, they are free to put up their claim if that is so permissible. This disposes of prayer clause (a). 2. So far as prayer clause (b) concerning Shop No.4, Receiver’s representative shall approach the said Shop No.4, take formal possession from a person who is found in possession of the said shop and till further orders said person shall not create third party rights. At this stage, learned Counsel Mr. Bansode claims that his client who is presently in possession of Shop No.4 has unnecessarily being dragging in the litigation and in fact, Court Receiver appointed in respect of the suit flat ought to be removed as on the day when the Receiver was appointed, the suit shop was not owned by the defendants. If this is the stand of the person who is presently in possession of Shop No.4, he is free to move the Court by filing appropriate proceedings for : 3 : CRR-151-10=.sxw cancellation of appointment of the Court Receiver so far as Shop No.4 is concerned. Till such orders are passed thereby cancelling the appointment of the Court Receiver, Court Receiver will continue to have control over the said Shop No.4. Court Report is disposed of accordingly. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)