1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.247 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.455 OF 2007 Siddhivinayak Towers Co-operative Hsg.Society Ltd., ...Petitioners V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents And Sadguru Ashish Construction ..Applicant ---- Mr. S.K.Nair i/by S.K.Nair & Co. for the petitioners. Mr.Rohit Kapadia Sr.Advocate i/by N.H.Shukla for the applicant. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare Sr.Advocate with Ms.S.M.Modle for respondent nos.1 & 2. ---- Coram : D.K.Deshmukh & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 25th June, 2009. P.C. 1. The present applicant has filed this Notice of Motion for recall of the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The principal grievance of the applicant is that he is the owner of the land in relation to which Receiver is 2 appointed by the order dated 20.10.2008. He has not been joined as a party to the petition. It is also his grievance that there are neither averments in the petition nor any prayer made in the petition for appointment of receiver on the land. The land also is not subject matter of the petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even according to the petitioner/society the land in relation to which receiver is appointed is R.G. land though the society claims certain rights, admittedly, the society is not the owner of the land. It is submitted that the order is liable to be recalled as it is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The first objection that is raised by the learned Counsel for the original petitioner is that this application amounts to review of the interim order passed by the Court and therefore, according to him, the matter should be placed before the same bench which has passed the order. After having gone through the record, we find that submission of the learned Counsel is not correct. Order dated 20.10.2008 is an interim order. The Court has to pass interim order from time to time as the occasion arises. The applicant is requesting the Court to set aside the order dated 20.10.2008 because the Court while making the order did not notice that Court is making the order in relation to the land of which the owner is not before it. It is apparent from the record that the order appointing receiver operates against the applicant who is the owner of the land. Admittedly, the owner has not been joined as a party to the petition. There are no averments made in the petition in relation to the land in question. In our opinion, therefore, at that juncture, the Court could not have made the order appointing receiver. The order dated 20.10.2008 is vacated. However, it is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the petitioner carrying out appropriate amendment in the petition and then making application for appropriate 3 relief if so entitled. Motion disposed of accordingly. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) ( R.S.MOHITE, J. )