1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 304 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 80 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2562 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 80 OF 2009 Mohamed Aslam M. Anwar Kashmiri & Anr. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ... Defendants. Mr. Subhash P. Nalavade for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Rafeeque Ahmede Killedar, one of the Director of Defendant No.1 present. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 24th NOVEMBER 2009. P.C. :- In this matter there was an ad-interim order passed by this Court after hearing the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 was also present. 2. After this order was passed by the Court, none has appeared to deny any of the statements made on affidavit nor are the plaint allegations being dealt with. In these circumstances, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of the ad-interim order dated 5th March 2009. 2 3. As far as Notice of Motion No.2562 of 2009 is concerned, it is also by the Plaintiffs and the relief claimed is that the royalty amount be waived, as the Plaintiffs have already deposited the same amount in the City Civil Court, Bombay, I do not see how this relief can be granted. Inasmuch as at this interlocutory stage when the Court has appointed a Receiver, it is only on the basis of the prima-facie satisfaction. It is not as if this Court can decree the Suit. When the Plaintiffs have been put in possession as an Agent of the Court Receiver during the pendency of the Suit for specific performance of an Agreement for Sale, I do not see what more relief can be granted. 5. The Notice of Motion is dismissed. However, if the Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the quantum of royalty which is determined by the Court Receiver, then they can raise appropriate pleas to challenge the said quantum. They can institute such proceedings as are permissible in law to challenge that action of the Court Receiver. Notice of Motion No.2562 of 2009 is dismissed subject to above. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)