Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Sippy, filed a suit in the Bombay High Court seeking possession of Flat No.5/B in Shree Vijayaa Bhavan, Mumbai, claiming ownership based on shares held in Unique Enterprise Co-operative Housing Society. He also filed a Notice of Motion for appointment of a Court receiver and for direction to the respondents to deposit interim compensation during the pendency of the suit. At the first ad-interim hearing on 15 March 2012, the defendants gave an undertaking not to alienate or part with possession of the flat. At the next hearing on 18 April 2012, the appellant sought further relief, but the trial judge refused, observing that there was no grave urgency to appoint a receiver or direct payment of interim compensation. The trial judge only granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from creating third-party rights. The appellant appealed. The High Court, in this appeal, considered only the limited question of whether interim relief in the form of appointment of a receiver or deposit of compensation was warranted at this stage. The court noted that the defendants had raised preliminary issues of limitation and jurisdiction, which were to be decided later. The court upheld the trial judge's order, finding no grave urgency, and dismissed the appeal. The court clarified that the contentions of the parties were kept open for the hearing of the notice of motion.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Relief - Appointment of Court Receiver - Grave Urgency - The court held that merely because 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 payment of interim compensation or mesne profits. The trial court's refusal to grant such relief was upheld. (Paras 2-3) B) Civil Procedure - Preliminary Issues - Limitation and Jurisdiction - The court noted that the defendants raised preliminary issues that the suit is barred by limitation and that the court has no jurisdiction, but these issues were left to be decided by the trial judge at the hearing of the notice of motion. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether during pendency of the suit, orders are required to be passed for appointment of Court receiver or deposit of interim compensation at this stage.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The impugned order of the trial judge dated 18 April 2012 is upheld. The trial judge's refusal to appoint a Court receiver or direct deposit of interim compensation at this stage is affirmed. The contentions of the parties are kept open for the hearing of the notice of motion.
Law Points
- Appointment of Court receiver requires grave urgency
- Interim compensation not warranted at ad-interim stage without full hearing
- Preliminary issues of limitation and jurisdiction to be decided first
