1 874.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 874 OF 2011 Gangubai Arjun Gaikwad. ... Appellant. V/s. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhthankar since deceased through his L.Rs. Mrs.Ranjan Mitehld and others. ... Respondents.. S.D.Thoakade for the appellant. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 17th October 2011. P.C. : In the suit bearing No.5854/1987, the trial Court passed an order directing return of plaint on 16th October 1996. During continuance of the suit, Court Receiver was appointed vide order dated 7th January 1988. It is not disputed that the Court Receiver took symbolic possession of the property in question. On passing of the order of return of plaint, all proceedings before the Court came to be terminated automatically. The plaintiff waited for about 20 years and tendered notice of motion in the year 2008 for discharge of the Receiver and for direction to return back the property to the plaintiff. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, passed order observing that only symbolic possession was taken over by the Receiver and, as such, 2 874.11-ao he was directed to hand over the symbolic possession to the person from whom possession was taken. It is to be noted that after return of plaint, the plaintiff neither challenged the order of return of plaint nor presented the plaint to the proper court. The relief asked in the suit was for possession of the property. In fact, in notice of motion, by asking the Court to issue direction to the Receiver to remove encroachment over the suit property and restore the possession of the property to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is seeking a decree for which substantial suit was presented, which plaint was directed to be returned by the trial Court. The trial Court is justified in passing the order dated 22nd January 2010 discharging Receiver and directing him to to hand over the symbolic possession of the property to the person from whom possession was taken. I do not find any error or irregularity in the impugned order. The appeal is without any substance. Appeal from order is, thus, dismissed. 2. In view of disposal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)