1 of 4 8-ia-3540-24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3540 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2012 Kumar Devendra Vora HUF & Anr. ..Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Bhadra Tushar Desai & Anr. ..Appellants Versus Kumar Devendra Vora HUF & Anr. ..Respondents __________ Mr. Murtaza Najmi a/w. Vinod Sharma, Ms. Farida Najmi, Naney Kanungo i/b. Mr. Manoj Dalvi for Applicants/Respondents in Appeal. Mr. Vishal Thaker a/w. Anjali Trivedi, Mulanshu Vora i/b. M/s. V. Thakers’ Advocates for Appellants. __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 27 JULY 2026 PC : 1. An Application is filed in the present Appeal No.310 of 2012. There are two main prayers in the application. The first prayer is for expediting the pending suit i.e. Suit No.3953 of 2010 before the City Civil Court and the second prayer is for the Appeal to be expedited. This Appeal arises from the order dated Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2026.07.29 13:07:50 +0530 2 of 4 8-ia-3540-24 30.11.2011 passed by a Single Judge of this Court whereby the Notice of Motion preferred by the original plaintiff (Respondent in the Appeal) was allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) of the Notice of Motion. By the impugned order, the prayer clause (b) was made absolute; which reads thus: “b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai be appointed as the Receiver in respect of the suit premises viz. Shop No.04, Ground Floor, Shree Yamuna, Opp. Poinsur Gymkhana, Poinsur Gymkhana Road, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067 admeasuring 192 sq.ft. To the Plaintiff with all powers as provided under O.40 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908” The Appeal was admitted. A Division Bench of this Court vide the order dated 10.02.2012 passed the following order: “The appellant is at liberty to make an application before the trial Court for joining Satyam Enterprises as party-defendant to Suit No.1695 of 2010.” 2. Beyond this, no further order was passed. There was no stay to the impugned order. We are informed by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the original plaintiffs had not taken any steps to make an application by approaching the 3 of 4 8-ia-3540-24 Court Receiver’s office of this Court. The impugned order was passed in favour of the plaintiffs way back in November 2011. More than 14 and half year have passed. 3. In the meantime, in October 2012, due to change in the pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court, Mumbai and it is being tried there. We are also informed that, recording of the evidence is going on. In this view of the matter, we see no harm in allowing the prayer clause (a) in the present application. The interim order passed in the Notice of Motion would of course be subject to the final decision of the suit. The present Appeal cannot be taken out of turn. The suit No.3953 of 2010 pending before the City Civil Court is, therefore, expedited. The Trial Court is requested to decide the said suit within a period of six months from today. The parties are at liberty to mention this Appeal before this Court if the occasion so arises. 4. The Application is disposed of. 5. It is made clear that pendency of this Appeal will not come in the way of deciding the suit within that time frame. 4 of 4 8-ia-3540-24 6. Both the parties shall co-operate with disposal of the suit within that time frame. (ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)