IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION No.4129 OF 2007 IN SUIT No.3030 OF 2007 Mrs Pramila Harilal ..Plaintiff. Vs. Tarlok Sing ..Defendant. Mr B. P. Shukla, Advocate for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. DATED: 06.08.2008. DATED: 06.08.2008. DATED: 06.08.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Perused the order dated 2.11.2007 passed by this Court at ad-interim stage. Pursuant to that order Mr B. P. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff stated that fresh intimation about the next date of hearing as well as copy of order were sent to the defendant. He also pointed out that thereafter writ of the summons of suit was also served through the Court Bailiff. Despite of these intimations to the defendant, the defendant has not opposed the suit as well as notice of motion. Whatever is stated by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the affidavit, and the notice of motion has gone unchallenged. 2. On perusal of the documents annexed to the plaint, it is clear that it was the plaintiff who was occupying the suit Gala for about four years prior to the date of cause of action. On 4.5.2007, prima facie, the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendant and since then the plaintiff is unable to use and occupy the suit Gala. It is, prima facie, clear that the plaintiff’s dispossession of the suit Gala is high handed and illegal. In such situation, the application for appointment of the Court Receiver deserves to be allowed. The motion is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 3. The plaintiff shall file affidavit in respect of sending of fresh intimation pursuant to the order dated 2.11.2007. (A.V. NIRGUDE,J.) (A.V. NIRGUDE,J.) (A.V. NIRGUDE,J.)