RAMESH SIPPY Vs. SURESH GOPALDAS SIPPY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18 April 2012 of the learned single Judge of this Court, in Notice of Motion No.577 of 2012 in Suit No.552 of 2012 filed by the appellant / plaintiff for obtaining possession of the Flat No.5/B situated on the 5 th floor ( the suit premises ) in a building known as "Shree Vijayaa Bhavan" in Mumbai. The suit is filed on the basis that the appellant is the owner of the said flat by virtue of holding shares in the Unique Enterprise Co-operative Housing Society. The appellant filed the above numbered Notice of Motion for appointment of Court receiver and for a direction to the respondents / defendants to deposit interim compensation during pendency of the suit.

(2.) At the first ad-interim hearing on 15 March 2012, the trial Court recorded the statement made on behalf of the defendants that until further orders, they will not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession or create any third party rights in the suit flat. At the next ad-interim hearing on 18 April 2012, the appellant / plaintiff prayed for further direction regarding appointment of Court receiver and for deposit of interim compensation. The learned trial Judge however, in the impugned order dated 18 April 2012 observed that merely because the affidavits were filed it cannot be said that there was such grave urgency that the Court must appoint a Court receiver at this stage or direct that the defendants should pay sum as interim compensation or mesne profit. Learned trial Judge accordingly granted only ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) restraining the defendants from disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession or creating any third party rights in the suit flat. Notice of Motion was ordered to be heard in due course by keeping open the contentions of the parties.

(3.) We may also note at this stage that the defendants have raised preliminary issues that the suit is barred by Law of Limitation and also that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit which can only be entertained and tried by the Court of Small Causes, at Mumbai. However, for the present it is not necessary to decide these issues as the same will be decided by the learned trial Judge at the hearing of Notice of Motion in which the above issues are sought to be raised as preliminary issues. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the limited question, whether during pendency of the Suit any orders are required to be passed at this stage for appointment of Court receiver or deposit of any interim compensation.