1 ao1318 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1318 OF 2010 Mayashankar Chaturbhuj Shukla ...Appellant vs. Chaturbhuj S. Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.P.G.Lad i/b Mr.Rajesh Singh for the appellant Mr.A.V.Jain i/b M/s.A.V.Jain for the respondent no.3 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 8,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. By consent of the appellant and the defendant nos.1 and 2, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay was appointed as a Receiver of the suit premises. By consent, the appellant was appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver without security and without royalty. By the impugned order, only clarification issued by the trial Court is that the appointment of the Court Receiver by consent of the parties will not prevent the Municipal Corporation from executing the notice dated 24 th January 2005 and that the order will not bind the third respondent who is the third defendant. 2 The order of appointment of the Court Receiver was passed by the consent of the applicant and first and second respondents. The third respondent had not consented to the said order. Hence, the said order will not bind the third respondent. As the Mumbai Municipal Corporation is not a party to the suit, the said interim order will not bind the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Hence, there is no error in the impugned order. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Civil application no.1621 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE