- (1.)P .C. Heard Mr. N.K. Mudnaney, the counsel for plaintiffs and Mr. D.M. Trivedi, Advocate for defendant nos. 1 and 2.
(2.)THE plaintiff have filed the suit seeking declaration that the agreement dated 10.3.1994 for sale of plot bearing C.T.S. No. 132 Part and 132/14 and 15 being plot no.5 of private scheme situated at East Side of Ghatkopar Mahul Road in Village of Manavli, Bombay between the defendants nos.1 & 2 and the plaintiffs, is valid and subsisting and that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are bound and liable to perform the same specifically. The plaintiffs have also prayed for decree of the specific performance of the agreement dated 10.3.1994 referred to hereinabove and declaration that the cancellation of the agreement dated 10.3.1994 by the defendant nos.1 and 2 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. In the alternative, the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of a sum of Rs. 10,08,120/- being the refund of the amount of the purchase price paid by the plaintiffs to defendant nos.1 and 2 and further interest on Rs.6,55,000/- at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment. The notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs praying for appointment of Court Receiver over the suit property and for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating and encumbering or in any manner disposing of the suit property and restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from entering into and/or remaining upon the suit property. No ad-interim reliect was granted to the plaintiffs and upon the said order being challenged by the plaintiffs before the appeal Court, ultimately the appeal was not pressed when the undertaking was given by the learned counsel for defendant nos.1 and 2 that they will not transfer, alienate or create any third party right in the suit property and/or undertake any construction thereon till the disposal of notice of motion.
Mr. Mudnaney, the learned counsel for plaintiffs submits that out of the total consideration of Rs.7,35,000/- the plaintiffs have paid substantial sum amounting to Rs. 6,55,000/- and defendant nos. 1 and 2 put the plaintiffs in possession on 30.7.1994 but later on the plaintiffs were dispossessed on 21.3.1996 and, therefore, this Court should pass appropriate order for appointment of Court Receiver and putting the plaintiffs in possession.

(3.)THOUGH no affidavit in reply has been filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 but they are seriously opposing the prayer of the plaintiffs for appointment of Receiver and putting them in possession during the pendency of the suit. However, the learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 fairly submitted that their clients make the statement that they would be bound by the undertaking given by them before the Division Bench to remain operative till the disposal of suit.