DINYAR RUSTOM PATELL Vs. RUSTOM J R PATELL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Notice of Motion had been taken out by original defendant No. 1 in the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Notice of Motion is for appointment of Receiver in respect of the suit premises. Mr. Varihawa, who was appointed as amicus curiae for assistance to the Court and who gave very real and very precious help to the Court described the suit as bizaree and frivolous. I will probably have occasion to examine that aspect of the question (whether it is a frivolous suit) in separate proceedings. At present, I am concerned mainly with the question as to whether defendant No. 1 (herein the defendant) was made out any case for the relief of Receivers appointment and that too not in his own suit, but in the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) I will first set out the facts which are either not disputed or are incapable of being disputed. Some legal position will also be referred while stating the facts for explaining the legal relevance of the fact question.

(3.) All the defendants have opposed the Notice of Motion as also the present suit in union. In the Notice of Motion even defendant No. 4 has filed an affidavit denying the plaintiffs claim in to. There arises a question whether the suit has not been filed in an entirely wrong Court and I am dealing with that question separately. But that apart, even on merits there is slender likelihood of the plaintiff even being able to get relief from any Court whatsoever. The suit appears to be without jurisdiction at least prima facie. But is appears to be devoid of any merits almost ex-facie. Mr. Varihawa very ably invited this courts attention on both these aspects of the suit. Whatever that may be, the fact remains that the plaintiff s Notice of Motion for injunction was made absolute by this Court on an earlier occasion and the result has been that the plaintiff has managed to get into possession of the suit premises on the strength of the said injunction to the exclusion of all others, although his right to claim possession as a matter of right against his won parents, appears to be unfounded.