Estates Ltd. (now known as Kumar Housing Corporation Limited) represented Signatory Mr v. Mrs.Indirabai Waman since heir original Plff. No.2 Mrs.Manda Age

Judgment

#1. Mrs. Indirabai Waman heir original Plff. No.2 Mrs. Manda Age 58

#2. Mrs. Age residing Peth, Thatte 3.Mr.Bhalchandra Age

#4. Mr. Age 58 69 61 deceased Sadashiv years, years, Manda years, Madhusudan years,

#5. Mr.Sharadchandra Nagesh Age Thatte, Service,

#6. Mr.Vishnu Thatte, Age 55 years, Occ. Service.

#7. Mr. Madhav Nagesh Thatte, Age 8.Mrs. Suman Age

#9. Mrs. Age 10.Mrs. Age 52 66 64 years, Herambh years, Sushila Nalini years, 47 Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 residing at 360, Shaniwar Peth, Pune-411 030. Thatte through ) Godbole Occ. Retired Sadashiv Occ. Wada, Nagesh Occ. Occ. ) Godbole, Retired, 360-A/1, Retired, Nagesh REtired, ) Ashok ) ) ) Occ. Nagesh Service, Kolhatkar, Occ. Vasudev Occ. Ravindra Household Household Occ. years, ) ) ) )..RESPONDENTS 58 years, Occ. Mr.A.V.Anturkar Mrs. Vinita B. Bakre-Shastry, SIDE SIDE SIDE 2005 2005 2005 ) ) ) ) ) ) legal) ) ) ) ) Shaniwar) Pune-411030) Thatte,) ) Thatte,) ) ) ) ) ) ) Divekar,) ) Gadgil,) Household) Petitioner CORAM CORAM CORAM DATED : : : : S.A.BOBDE, S.A.BOBDE, S.A.BOBDE, 17TH JUNE, J. J. J. 2005 ORALORALORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: -2- . The petitioner is Defendant No.16 in a suit for partition declaration a property Pune. The petitioner arrayed Defendant No.16 appointed as Receiver. Admittedly, the Petitioner has entered into an agreement to purchase the said property.

#2. security reduced Initially the Petitioner was directed to give Rs.1.00 crore. This amount application a Rs.50.00 lakhs. However, Petitioner offered property security amount. This application rejected. Eventually Court appropriate discharge petitioner Receiver appointed Advocate, been directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.

#3. The petitioner has challenged both the orders (1) discharging Receiver i.e. Receiver (2) directing Advocate furnish security Rs.50,000/- only. I person appointed a Receiver. There accordingly corresponding a Court appoint particular person a Receiver. The Receiver a legis. Court property becomes custodia It is, therefore, discretion Court appoint suitable person a Receiver. suitable person include a In circumstances challenge directing petitioners ceased A suit. a Receiver in view of inability to furnish security of -3- Rs.50.00 lakhs.

#4. As regards the second application, I am of the view that there is no merit there either. Order 40 Rule 3 of C.P.C. to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-

#3. Duties.- Every receiver so appointed shall-- (a) furnish such security (if any) as the Court thinks fit, duly to account for what he shall receive in respect of the property. (b)..... (c)..... (d) ...." According Petitioner property Court committed illegality atleast impropriety Advocate, directing Receiver, Rs.50,000/-. I submission Rule 3 clause (a) Order 40 C.P.C., Court direct Receiver furnish security receive respect property. IN present a difference between position petitioner, a entered agreement purchase property receive property Advocate receive property. It is, therefore, possible compare position persons. I merits submission petitioner’s capacity should -4- receive a Receiver receive a prospective property. There is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. BOBDE, J.) (S.A. BOBDE, J.) (S.A. BOBDE, J.) (S.A.