:1: :1: :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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1984 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.2448 OF 2002 Cukkemane Ramayia Ashok Kumar and Anr. .. Plaintiffs. Vs. Ramesh P.Poojari & Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.R.Narula i/b Jhangiani Narula & Asociates for the plaintiffs. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 9TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 9TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 9TH APRIL, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs. None for the defendants, though served. 2. This motion was placed before the court on 2nd April, 2008 and since none appeared for the defendants it was adjourned for one week with direction to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs to give notice to the advocate for the defendants informing him the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that he has, accordingly, issued notice. Despite notice, none appears for the defendants. It appears that against the ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in this motion, appeal No.525 of 2006 was filed :2: :2: :2: by the plaintiffs and the Division Bench vide order dated 9th August, 2006 disposed of the appeal by the following order: "1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Appeal is admitted. By consent of all the parties, taken up for final hearing. By this Appeal, the Appellants-Plaintiffs are challenging the order dated 28th June, 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to grant any ad-interim relief. After perusal of the order dated 17th & 23rd August, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Notice of Motion No.1985 of 2002 it is very clear that the Respondents conducting agreement came to an end on 31st October, 2004. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the Appellants are the owners of the said suit premises. There is no dispute that right from 2003 till date the premises are kept in a locked condition in the custody of the Court Receiver. The Respondents do not have any right after 31st October, 2004. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the Respondents had handed over a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the Appellants by way of a security deposit, however, it is disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the Court Receiver to continue. The Court Receiver will have a formal possession of the suit premises. The Appellants be put in possession of the suit premises as agents of the Court Receiver without any security or royalty. The Appellants shall enter into an agency agreement within a period of four weeks from today. 3. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has made a statement that the Appellants will not part with possession of or create any third party rights or induct any third party in the suit premises without giving four weeks prior notice in writing to the Respondents as well as to the Court Receiver. 4. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of :3: :3: :3: the above." 3. It is clear that the defendants’ conducting agreement came to an end on 31st October, 2004 and that appears to be the reason why neither the defendants nor their advocate is present. Having regard to the order dated 9th August, 2006 which is operating till this date and for the reasons stated in the affidavit, this notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (d) subject to the condition that the plaintiffs shall file undertaking within two weeks from today stating that they shall not part with possession of the suit premises or create any third party rights without permission of the court. The reliefs in terms of the prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) are allowed to be prayed at an appropriate stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. All contention of the plaintiffs insofar as these prayers are concerned, are kept open to be raised at appropriate stage. With these observations the notice of motion is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)