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.2210 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO.2210 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO.2210 OF 2006 in in in SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.3944 OF 2003 NO.3944 OF 2003 NO.3944 OF 2003 Ramesh Vasant Juker .. Plaintiff Vs. Anandiben P.Patel ... ... Defendant Mr.A.M.Saraogi with Mr.S.K.Chaurasia for Plaintiff Mr.M.A.Shah for Defendant CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR, J S.J.VAZIFDAR, J S.J.VAZIFDAR, J DATED: DATED: DATED: 26th March, 2008 26th March, 2008 26th March, 2008 P.C P.C P.C 1. The Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiff for cancellation of the agency of the defendants as the agent of the Court Receiver and to appoint him as agent of the Court Receiver. In view of the order dated 13th August, 2004 in Notice of Motion No.376 of 2003 in the above suit, it is not possible to appoint the plaintiff as the agent of the Court Receiver. 2. The only ground urged in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion for withdrawing the appointment of the defendant as the agent of the Court Rceiver is that the defendant had not 2 filed the accounts as directed by the said order dated 13th August, 2004 read with the order of the Division Bench dated 20th February, 2005. 3. The agency agreement was executed on 26th October, 2005. The accounts have been filed. It is true that the accounts are sketchy. However, learned counsel for the defendant states that he is willing to give inspection of the vouchers and of the supporting documents to the plaintiff. No objection had been taken to the above by the Court Receiver. Had the objection been taken the defendant would have had an opportunity of dealing with the same. 4. It appears that due to an erroneous construction of the order dated 13th August, 2004 the accounts had been filed only from 1st October, 2005. This was on the basis that the agency agreement had been executed only on 26th October, 2005. However, the order dated 13th August, 2004 requires the accounts to be maintained. In the absence of any qualification, it would mean that the accounts have to be maintained from the date of the order. As this was a bonafide and genuine mis-apprehension, no action against the defendant 3 is called for in this regard. The defendant shall file the accounts from 13th August, 2004. Mr.Saraogi states that he is not pressing the other allegations against the defendant at this stage as the plaintiff intends adopting appropriate proceedings in this behalf. 5. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is disposed of by the following order : O R D E R The plaintiff is at liberty to take inspection of the documents with the assistance of a Chartered Accountant if he so desires. The defendant shall furnish the accounts even from 13th August, 2004 i.e. date of the said order within 12 weeks from today.