NIPA R. DOSHI Vs. TARAMATI J. DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned councel for the parties.

(2.) THOUGH the order dated 28.6.1996 passed by the trial Court and impugned in the present appeal is harsh, yet after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that no case for interference is made out and the impugned order being imminently just and proper, the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case did not commit any error in appointing Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay of the suit flat i.e. flat no.7, Ashirwad, Plot No.353/B/1 & 15, Vallabhbaug Lane Extension, Ghatkopar (East), Bombay and to appoint the plaintiff, respondent no. 1 herein, as his agent, without any security and without compensation to occupy the suit flat.

(3.) IT would not be out of place to mention here that on 4/7/1996 a Commissioner was appointed by this Court to inspect the site and submit his report about its physical location as well as the details of the articles lying and as to whether the defendant no. 1-appellant was residing in the suit flat or any portion thereof or not. The Commissioner has submitted his report on 4/7/1996. From the Commissioner's report it appears that though the appellant defendant no.1 was present at the site when the Commissioner visited the disputed flat but it did not appear to the Commissioner that the appellant-defendant no.1 was in fact residing there with her children. The children were not found present in the suit flat. The watchman of the building made a statement to the Commissioner that defendant no. 1-appellant herein had removed her articles and things from the suit flat on Saturday, 29th June 1996 and only on that day about 11.30 a.m. some articles and things have been kept by her in the suit flat. The Commissioner's report is objected to by the appellant defendent no.1 and she had filed her own affidavit challenging its correctness as well as affidavit of Harish Bolar. Upon perusal of the affidavit filed by the appellant herein and the affidavit of one Harish Bolar, in the absence of convincing material, I do not find the said affidavits reliable and there is no reason much less justifiable to disbelieve the report submitted by the Commissioner before this Court on 4/7/1996.