1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATIO NO. 3389 of 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1567 of 2007 M/s. Rathi Builders Pvt. Ltd. & ors. ....Petitioner Vs. M/s. Shriraj Builders & Developers & ors. ....Respondents Mr. R.D.Soni i/b. M/s. Ram & co. for the applicant. Mr. Harshad Palwe, advocate for respondents 1-4. Mr. M.L. Patil-adv. For respondent no.5. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED:- JUNE 14, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Although the primary relief claimed in this Application is to appoint Court Receiver to take over property bearing Final Plot No. 481 situated at College Road, Nashik, Counsel for the Applicant, however, in all fairness accepted that if the Court were to grant injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (c), in that case there would be no question of appointing Court Receiver. 3. In the circumstances, we have considered the arguments of the Counsel 2 for the parties in the context of prayer clause (c) of the Application. It is not in dispute that the larger Plot is described as 1A of which the smaller portion is described as 1B and 1C. In so far as Plot No. 1B is concerned, the Respondent is owner thereof having purchased the same by registered sale deed dated 15th October, 1999. In so far as that plot is concerned, Respondent is entitled to enjoy the said property in the manner they would like. In so far as Plot No. 1A is concerned, the Applicant is the owner thereof. Indeed, the Respondent is found to be in possession even of the said plot as noted by the Lower Court. However, the status of Respondent is not that of either owner or by way of part performance in relation to the said plot No. 1A. The Applicant has been allowed by the Lower Court to proceed against the Respondent for recovery of possession of the said plot No. 1A which the Applicant may take recourse to in due course. That, however, would not authorise the Respondent to exploit plot No. 1A. 4. In so far as demarcation of plot is concerned, as per the order passed by this Court, that has been done by DILR. The order passed by DILR has not been challenged by either party. The parties are, therefore, bound by the demarcation made by the DILR which is reflected in the map placed on record before us. The grievance of the Applicant that the Respondents 1-4 are trying to 3 change the boundary of the said plot in question even after the demarcation has been done by the DILR is not substantiated before us. 5. As aforesaid, both the parties would be bound by the demarcation done by the DILR. The Respondents 1-4 shall not in any manner violate the said demarcation done by the DILR and attempt to encroach upon any other property. The Respondents 1-4 would however, be free to enjoy Plot No. 1B, in respect of which registered sale deed has been executed in their favour. 6. In so far as grievance of the Applicant that the Respondents 1-4 are attempting to commercially exploit even Plot No. 1A can be redressed by directing the Respondents 1-4 to maintain status-quo in respect of said plot as of today and not to create third party interest therein in any manner or to commercially exploit the same without taking prior permission of the Court. That arrangement shall be observed by the parties till the disposal of the Appeal. 7. The Application is disposed of on the above basis. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)