Megha 48_WP_1431_2020.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1431 OF 2020 Anand Bhimaji Waghmare and Anr. ...Petitioners/Plaintiffs V/s. Prakash Dagadu Chavan and Ors. ...Respondents/Defendants ______________ Mr. Rahul V. Shinde for the Petitioners. ______________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 04 NOVEMBER 2025. P.C.: 1) Petition challenges order dated 18 September 2019 passed by the 16th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, rejecting the application preferred by Petitioners/ Plaintiffs at Exhibit-31 for appointment of court receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code). 2) I have heard Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and considered the submissions canvassed by him. I have also perused the records of the case. 3) Plaintiffs’ Suit is for injunction against the Defendants in respect of construction carried out in the suit property. Plaintiffs have prayed for removal of the said construction. Plaintiffs have also prayed for injunction from disturbing their possession of the suit property. In their Page No. 1 of 3 04 November 2025 2025:BHC-AS:46948 Megha 48_WP_1431_2020.docx Suit Plaintiffs filed application at Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction. In that application an ad-interim order was passed on 19 September 2014 directing Defendants not to disturb peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs. Defendants appeared in the Suit and in addition to filing of written statement, they have also filed a counter claim seeking a declaration of acquisition of title by adverse possession as well as injunction against Plaintiffs from disturbing their possession of the suit property. Defendants also filed application for temporary injunction in their counter claim. 4) Plaintiffs filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code alleging breach of ad-interim injunction order and alleging progress of construction at the site. During pendency of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code, Plaintiffs were advised to file application at Exhibit-31 for appointment of court receiver for the purpose of receiving the income in respect of the construction put up in the suit property by the Defendants. Application for appointment of court receiver has been rejected by the impugned order dated 18 September 2019. 5) It appears that during pendency of the present Petition Plaintiffs’ application at Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction has been rejected by order dated 16 January 2020. Thus, the Court has prima facie found merit in the case of the Defendants and has refused injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs. When order dated 18 September 2019 was passed Plaintiffs’ application at Exhibit-5 and Defendants’ application at Exhibit 19 were still pending. Now the said applications are decided against the Plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for appointment of court receiver for construction carried out in the suit property. If Plaintiffs ultimately succeed in the Suit, they can apply for conduct of Page No. 2 of 3 04 November 2025 Megha 48_WP_1431_2020.docx enquiry into mesne profit under the provisions of Order XX Rule 12 of the Code. Petition is thus devoid of merits. It is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 04 November 2025 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 06/11/2025 15:47:10