Bombay High Court
SHRI. MANOHARLAL LACHAMANDAS GAJA AND ORSversusSHRI. RAVI GULABRAO BHANASE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the writ court lacks jurisdiction to direct the Court Receiver appointed by the civil court.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking the Court Receiver, appointed under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC, to take action against respondents and demolish an illegal structure on the suit property. The High Court examined whether such a direction could be issued by a writ court, noting that the receiver's duties are governed by the civil court that appointed him. The Court held that the writ jurisdiction does not extend to executing orders of a civil court or directing the receiver’s actions. Consequently, the petition was found to be non‑maintainable. The petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable to direct a Court Receiver appointed by a civil court to take action against respondents
- Whether the writ court has jurisdiction to execute or supervise orders of a civil court
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 40 Rule 1, Section 151
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- court receiver
- Civil Procedure Code
- property dispute
- illegal structure
- execution of civil orders
Judgment
Digitally signed by SMITA
SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVES
GONSALVES Date: 2026.01.10 01:49:08
+0530
sg 10.wp(c)1717-21.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1717 OF 2021
Manoharlal Lachamandas Gaja And Ors … Petitioners
versus
Ravi Gulabrao Bhanase And Ors … Respondents
----
Mr Kedar Lad, for the petitioners, through VC.
----
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE AND
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE: 8th JANUARY, 2026
P.C.:
1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has marked his
appearance through VC.
The writ petition filed by the petitioners seek further
action to be taken by the Court Receiver, who was appointed
by the order dated 21/6/2018 passed in Regular Civil Suit
No.238/2012, on an Order below Exhibit-102, which was an
application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 40 Rule 1 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Page 1 of 3
__________________________________________________
8 January 2026
sg 10.wp(c)1717-21.docx
The order reveals that, in order to protect the subject
matter of the property, the Court deemed it appropriate to
exercise its powers under Order 40 Rule 1 of CPC and
appointed the Municipal Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation, as the Court Receiver of the suit property till the
disposal of the interim application, with certain ancillary
directions being issued. By filing the present writ petition, the
petitioners seek a direction that the Court Receiver so
appointed to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 1
to 5, and a further direction is sought to demolish the
unauthorised and illegal structure of the respondents situated
on the suit property.
2. We fail to appreciate how such a prayer is maintainable
before us. Upon an application being filed for appointment of a
Court Receiver by the plaintiff, the Court Receiver came to be
appointed within the powers conferred upon him for
preserving the suit property, its nature, and its status. Once the
Court Receiver is appointed, the plaintiffs can certainly seek the
discharge of his duties by preferring an application before the
concerned Court which has appointed the Court Receiver. We,
as a writ Court, are certainly not an executing Court for order
passed by the civil Court.
Page 2 of 3
__________________________________________________
8 January 2026
sg 10.wp(c)1717-21.docx
3. For this reason, we find no merit in this petition and
accordingly dismiss the same.
(R.N. LADDHA, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________________________
8 January 2026
Checking your session…