PRASAD RAMESH RENUKARversusSHOBHA SUBHASH RENUKAR AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:44101
                                                 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
                              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/-