:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.768 OF 2006 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.768 OF 2006 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.768 OF 2006 Salim Ahmed Amir Ahmed ...Appellant. v. 1.Saira Begum Amir Ahmed & Ors. ...Respondents. Shri R.D.Mishra, adv. for the appellant absent. Shri Y.M.Chaudhary i/by Shri Kunal Cheema, advs. for the respondent no.11. WITH WITH WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.558 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.558 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.558 OF 2007 Santacruz Golibar Amardeep Co-operative Housing Society ...Appellant. v. 1.Salim Ahmed Amir Ahmed & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Y.M.Chaudhari i/by Shri Kunal Cheema , advs. for the Appellant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 28th April, 2008. DATE: 28th April, 2008. DATE: 28th April, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Appeal From Order No.558 of 2007 is filed by the defendant no.11 in S.C.Suit No.3224 of 2001 and Appeal From Order No.768 of 2006 is filed by the original plaintiff. 2. To state in brief, the plaintiff had filed the suit against defendant nos.1 to 10 and had claimed partition and separate possession of the suit property on the ground that suit property was owned by their father since 1928. Defendant no.11 is the Co-operative :2: Housing Society of the persons, who are in occupation of certain premises in the suit property and according to them in the year 1991, the lease deed was executed in their favour by MHADA in respect of suit property including the premises situated thereon. Initially the defendant no.11 was not a party in the suit, when the plaintiffs had taken out notice of motion no.2653 of 2001 for appointment of receiver of the suit premises. On 28th January, 2002, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court had allowed that notice of motion and directed appointment of Court Receiver in respect of suit property but he was to take only formal possession of the suit property without disturbing the actual occupation of the persons in possession. Later on, by the order dated 28-10-2002, City Civil Court had directed not to disturb possession in respect of defendant no.11 Co-operative Housing Society and its members. Plaintiff took out Notice of Motion No.980 of 2003 seeking modification of the above referred two orders and for direction to the court receiver to take actual possession of certain rooms, which form part of the suit property. Defendant no.11 also took out notice of motion no.1551 of 2004 seeking modification of the order dated 28th January, 2002. It was contended that the said order was obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant nos.1 to 10, who had no concern with the property. It was contended that the plaintiff had not even impleaded MHADA, who had leased :3: out property to the defendant no.11. It appears that during the hearing of these two notice of motions nos.980 of 2003 and 1551 of 2004, plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 10 tried to file consent terms but in view of the objections taken by the defendant no.11, that request was turned down. Notice of Motion No.980 of 2003 was rejected after going through the record. In view of the notice of motion no.1551 of 2004, the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 15th September, 2006 partly modifying the order dated 28-10-2002 and directed the Court Receiver to file a fresh report as to the position of the suit premises and to give detailed account of the occupants within ten weeks. That order has been challenged by the defendant no.11 in Appeal From Order No.558 of 2007. In view of the rejection of Notice of Motion No.980 of 2003, original plaintiff has preferred Appeal From Order No.768 of 2006. 3. In spite of repeated calls, none appeared for the original plaintiff. Heard Mr.Y.M.Chaudhari the learned counsel for the original defendant no.11 in these two appeals. Perused the record. The learned counsel for the defendant no.11 does not appear to have any basic objection with the order passed by the trial Court on 15-9-2006. After some discussion at the bar, he only seeks clarification that the Court Receiver shall give detailed account of all the occupants on the suit property as shown in schedule of the property in :4: the suit so that even names of the occupants, who are the members of the defendant no.11 society may come on record alongwith portions of the property in their possession. He apprehends that in view of the impugned order, Court Receiver may give account of the occupants in the specific rooms and thus, the report may be restricted to occupation of defendant nos.1 to 10 only. 4. After perusal of the record, I find no fault in dismissal of the Notice of Motion No.980 of 2003. In fact, I also do not find fault with the order passed by the trial Court in Notice of Motion No.1551 of 2004. Apprehension of defendant no.11 that the Court Receiver will give account of occupation of defendant nos.1 to 10 only does not appear to be well founded. In fact that order clearly shows that the Court Receiver will file a fresh report as to the position of the suit premises and give detailed account of the occupants in the suit premises. In my view, suit premises should mean suit property as described in the schedule of the property, Exhibit A annexed to the plaint. Anyhow, for the purpose of clarification, it may be recorded that Court Receiver shall give detailed report in respect of complete suit property and all the occupants including defendants as well as members of the defendant no.11 Society. :5: 5. With this clarification, both the appeals stand dismissed. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose off suits as early as possible. 6. As the appeal itself is dismissed, Civil Application Nos.935 of 2007 and Civil Application No.1045 of 2006 in Appeal From Order No.768 of 2006 do not survive and stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)