1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3125 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.715 OF 2004 Mr.Naresh Dhoot & Ors. ..... Applicants vs. Mr. M.S. Dhillon ..... Respondent Mr.N.R. Dhoot, applicant in person. Ms.Deepa Ahuja, Advocate for respondent. Coram : Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 25th January, 2010. P.C. : 1. This Civil Application taken out on 16th August 2004 is for modification of the interim order passed in the appeal and for cancellation of the agency agreement dated 8th/9th August 2004, pursuant to which the respondent has been occupying the suit flat. The applicant also seeks direction to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay that he be appointed as an Agent of the Court Receiver to occupy the suit flat on execution of the necessary agency agreement. The applicant seeks cancellation of the agency agreement with the respondent on the ground of the non payment of the dues of the society, in which the suit flat is situate. He contends relying upon the letter dated 7th July 2004 sent by the society to his Advocate that the unpaid dues of the society as on 31st March 2004 were of Rs.1,64,115.25. This claim of the applicant has been disputed by the respondent. 2 2. The record shows that this Court had given directions to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay in Civil Application No.3374 of 2004 to calculate the arrears payable to the society by the appellant as well as the respondent on the basis of actual possession of the suit flat as per the findings of the trial Court. The order gave detailed instructions by specifying the period, for which payment was to be made by both the sides. Pursuant to the directions, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay made his report No.376/2008 dated 18th October 2008 stating that the the total amount payable by the respondent was of Rs.2,84,000/- and that payable by the applicant was of Rs.15,712/-. Both the sides raise dispute as regards the calculation and making a claim that there was no amount due from them. The respondent claims to have in fact paid surplus amount. 3. The record of the present Civil Application further shows that the respondent has from time to time deposited substantial amount with the Court Receiver. This Court is not required to go into the minute details of the amount payable by each side, in view of the specific order dated 17th October 2008 passed by this Court in Civil Application No.3374 of 2004. This order has not been challenged by any of the parties. The only grievance that is required to be addressed in the present Civil Application is whether the order directing the Court Receiver to appoint the respondent as an Agent of the Court Receiver to occupy the suit flat is required to be 3 modified on the ground of alleged violation of the order of payment of society dues. It is nobody's case that no dues whatsoever have been paid to the society. There has been dispute as regards the extent of liability. The directions in regard to that dispute having already been given, the agency agreement of the respondent with the Court Receiver cannot be cancelled. Both the sides have made extensive arguments on the Civil Application referring to the conduct of the opposite party during the trial of the suit as well as during the present proceedings. In my opinion that conduct will not be relevant for deciding the present Civil Application. Therefore the only direction that can be given in the present Civil Application is that the parties to complete the payment as per the calculations submitted in the report dated 18th October 2008, pursuant to the order dated 17th October 2008. The payment to be completed within a period of six weeks from today. With this direction, the Civil Application is disposed of. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J.)