: 1 : SD IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3847 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO.3847 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO.3847 OF 2005 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.3007 OF 2005 NO.3007 OF 2005 NO.3007 OF 2005 Kirti Raj Sawant & Anr. ...Plaintiffs V/s. Hemlata B. Sawant & Ors. ...Defendants Ms.Heena Mody, Advocate, for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008. : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008. : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Ms.Mody appears for the Plaintiffs. None appears for the Defendants. 2. This Notice of Motion is taken out for interim order for giving effect to certain family arrangement that was executed by the parties in June, 2001. The Notice of Motion also sought recovery of possession and recovery of certain amount. 3. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that despite the family arrangement referred to above, the Defendants have failed to implement : 2 : the same. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs states that the Defendants have been earning profits using the suit property for themselves. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs stated that despite the family settlement, the Plaintiff No.1 has not been receiving any monetary benefit from the property of the family. She said she is widow and she has been staying at Saharanpur in U.P. with her son i.e. the Plaintiff No.2. 4. At ad-interim stage, the Defendant No.3 had appeared on 19th December, 2005 and sought time but subsequently none appeared for the Defendants. On that day, an ad-interim order came to be passed appointing the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, in respect of Block No.9 referred to in paragraph No.5 of the family settlement. Ms.Modi, the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs, stated that the Court Receiver has taken formal possession of the said block long back and thereafter numbers of events took place between the Court Receiver and the occupier of Block No.9 who was appointed as agent of the Court Receiver. : 3 : 5. Ms.Modi also informed the Court that since December, 2005 or January, 2006, the Court Receiver has been recovering certain amounts as compensation from the agent of the Court Receiver for occupying and using the Block No.9. She said in the meanwhile, the Court Receiver even forcibly took possession of the suit block and is likely to let it out to a third party. It is thus clear that due to the ad-interim order, Block No.9 is more or less put to meaningful use whereby the Court Receiver is able to recover certain compensation periodically. As per the family settlement, this amount belongs to the Plaintiffs. There is no denial of this fact by the Defendants. They have not filed any reply opposing the Notice of Motion. 6. Ms.Modi further informed the Court that her clients at this stage do not want further order in the Notice of Motion and they are quite satisfied with the action the Court Receiver has been taking in respect of the Block No.9. Ms.Modi also does not want any further order in respect of the other property other than the status-quo order which is passed earlier. The : 4 : Notice of Motion is thus disposed of in terms of order passed by this Court on 19th December, 2005. 7. In this situation, the following order would suffice the ends of justice :- "O "O "O R D E R" R D E R" R D E R" "The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of the order passed by this Court on 19th December, 2005. In addition to this, the Court Receiver is directed to pay the entire compensation so far recovered to the Plaintiff, if it is not given already. The Court Receiver is directed to give the said amount to the Plaintiff in future also till the disposal of the Suit." [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.]