1 902-WP.12929-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 WRIT PETITION NO. 12929 OF 2026 PRASAD RAMESH RENUKAR VERSUS SHOBHA SUBHASH RENUKAR AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Zaware Suvarna M. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. R. G. Hange. ... CORAM : MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 24.09.2026 PER COURT :- 1. The petitioner, who is the original defendant in RCS.No.196 of 2025 is aggrieved by the order passed below Exh.31, wherein the Trial Court in exercise of its powers under Order XL Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code has appointed a Court Receiver for the management, protection and preservation as well as for the collection of the income by way of donation that would be received during the period commencing from 12.09.2026 to 10.10.2026. The suit is filed by the defendant for declaration and injunction. The suit is filed for declaring that ‘will deed’ and ‘gift deed’ issued in favour of the petitioner were obtained by fraud and, therefore it should be cancelled. Pending the said suit, an application 2026:BHC-AUG:44101 2 902-WP.12929-26.odt was filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Court Commissioner or Court Receiver. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has strenuously argued contending that although the application below Exh.5 filed by the respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs has been rejected in spite of that the Court has passed order appointing the Court Receiver. She submits that already a resolution has been passed by the Trust in favour of the petitioner to perform the Pooja during the period 12.09.2026 to 10.10.2026. As such, there was no necessity for passing an order appointing Court Receiver. 3. Learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has appeared on instructions and opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 4. I have heard the petitioner as well as gone through the order passed below Exh.31, dated 11.09.2026. After going through the order, in my opinion, the Trial Court has considered the prayer made by the respondents herein, in detail and has filed appropriate order by appointing the Court Receiver to preserve whatever donations and property received during the said period. All minute details have been taken care 3 902-WP.12929-26.odt of in the order which runs from clause Nos.1 to 20. Since no rights have been conferred in favour of the respondents herein and even the right of the petitioner to perform the Pooja has not been disturbed by way of this order. I do not find any prejudice caused to the present petitioner by appointment of Court Receiver. Detail instructions have been issued to the Court Receiver in what manner the donations and the valuable articles received during the aforesaid period are to be preserved. Therefore, in my view, no case for interference is made out by the petitioner. However, there appears to be some substance in the submissions of the petitioner that the upkeep and maintenance of the Devasthan was made from the income received through donations; that aspect of the matter has not been taken care of, by the impugned order. In that view of the matter, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Karjat bringing it to the notice of learned Judge that this provision has not been made and this is the practice that has been followed during the order passed by this Court. Upon pointing out by way of appropriate application, appropriate order to modify the order passed below Exh.31 shall be passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Karjat by granting liberty to all the parties. 4 902-WP.12929-26.odt 5. In view of the aforementioned directions, Writ Petition stands disposed of. (MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.) ... vmk/-