1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 863 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 402 OF 2007 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4127 OF 2009 Russel Pereira, .... Appellant. vs. Roger Rodrigues & Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Adv., i/by M/s. YKS Legal for the appellant. Mr. D.D. Masdan, Sr. Adv., i/by Ms. E.A. Gonsalves for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Denzil D'mello for respondent no. 4. Ms. Poonam Mital for respondent nos. 5 to 7. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J. & B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. 2 Heard. 2. The appellants - original defendant no. 1 has impugned the order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Receiver has been appointed for the subject property. 3. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have 5.56% share each and the appellant-defendant no.1 has 16.66% share in the estate of the deceased who died intestate leaving behind the properties which are described in Exhibit "C" to the plaint and is referred to as the "suit property". It appears that as some of the parties to the suit particularly appellant-defendant no.1 were enjoying the fruits of the property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs who have filed the suit for seeking partition. 4. Mr. Sakhare, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the property particularly Pereira Cottage is being commercially exploited by his wife who has been looking after this property and, therefore, without impleading the appellant's wife as a party respondent it was not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to appoint Court Receiver for the said property in particular "Pereira House". 5. The appellant-original defendant no. 1 is admittedly residing in the said cottage along with his wife who has no share in the property. The wife of the appellant-original defendant no. 1 is neither a necessary or proper party for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. Therefore, the 3 learned Single Judge was justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case in appointing the Court Receiver so as to preserve the property till the decision of the suit for which it was not necessary to give any notice to the wife of the appellant-original defendant no.1. 6. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, notice of motion does not survive and also stands rejected. (J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.)