Bombay High Court
KUMAR DEVENDRA VORA HUF AND ANRversusBHADRA TUSHAR DESAI AND TUSHAR D. DESAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court ordered the pending suit to be decided within six months and disposed of the interim application without staying the earlier receiver order.
Summary
An interim application was filed in Appeal No. 310 of 2012 seeking (a) expeditious disposal of Suit No. 3953 of 2010 pending before the City Civil Court, and (b) acceleration of the appeal itself. The appeal arose from a 2011 order appointing a High Court Receiver under Order 40 of the CPC, which had not been acted upon for over fourteen years. The Court noted that the suit had been transferred to the City Civil Court and was at the evidence‑recording stage, and found no reason to stay the earlier order. Consequently, the Court ordered that the trial court decide the suit within six months, while allowing the parties to raise the appeal again if needed. The interim application was disposed, with the clarification that its pendency would not hinder the suit’s expedited timeline.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim application seeking expeditious disposal of the pending suit can be granted.
- Whether the appeal can be expedited or stayed in view of the earlier order appointing a court receiver.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 40
Subjects
- interim application
- expedition of suit
- court receiver
- Order 40 CPC
- civil procedure
- stay of proceedings
- appeal
Judgment
Gokhale 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
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
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.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.