JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---In the draft Notice of Motion, leave under Rules 147/148 of the High Court, O.S. Rules is granted to take out the Notice of Motion in terms of the draft Notice of Motion handed in. With consent of the parties, motion made returnable forthwith. Defendants waive service. Office is directed to register the Notice of Motion. The plaintiff is given time to register the Notice of Motion by 8th December, 1997. To be heard forthwith along with the Notice of Motion No. 3239 of 1995. This order will dispose of both the Notice of Motion.

2. The Notice of Motion No. 3239 of 1995 was taken out for appointment of the Receiver of the suit property and for injunction. The Notice of Motion came up for hearing on 22nd November, 1995. Ad interim injunction was granted. A perusal of the order shows that it was agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs. 19 lacs were paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on the basis of the agreement dated 26th October, 1995. In view of the above, the Counsel for the defendants made a statement at the bar after taking instructions that the defendants are willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 19 lacs in the Court within three months. It was, therefore, directed that after the said sum is deposited, the defendants shall be at liberty to apply for vacating of the order of injunction or for modification of the order. The Prothonotary Senior Master was directed to invest the sum of Rs. 19 lacs in the Fixed Deposit with a Nationalised Bank for such a period as he deems fit. It was also directed that at the final hearing of the motion, the Court shall decide inter alia as to whether the said amount shall be continued to be remain invested or should be paid over to the defendants or should be returned back to the plaintiff. All contentions were kept open. The order also notices that in view of the statement made by the Counsel for the defendants, the Notice of Motion was not examined on merits of the rival contentions. The order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties at the final hearing of the motion. Thereafter it appears that the defendants did not make the payment as stipulated in the order dated 22nd November, 1995. Thereafter the Notice of Motion came up for hearing on 23rd September, 1996. In this order it is noticed that three months time had expired in February, 1996 and the defendants have not deposited a single rupee out of Rs. 19 lacs which they assured the Court to deposit within three months from the date of the order, which assurance was accepted by the Court. Thus, the plaintiff has brought the matter before the Court for further orders. Mr. Mehta, the Counsel appearing for the defendants stated that the defendants would deposit the amount on or before 31st October, 1996. The conduct of the defendants was adversely commented upon by this Court. It was observed that the conduct of the defendants can by no means be said to be praise-worthy. However, the defendants were permitted to deposit the sum of Rs. 19 lacs by 31st October, 1996, but at the same time the Court Receiver, High Court, was appointed as Receiver of the suit property in terms of prayer Clause (a), except the bracketed portion. It was, however, made clear that in the event the amount is deposited, then the aforesaid order shall automatically stand vacated. It appears again the defendants failed to comply with the aforesaid order and the matter came up for hearing on 4th November, 1996. At that stage, Mr. S. K. Jain appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. J. J. Thakkar appeared for the defendants. The defendants had taken out the draft Notice of Motion. Leave was granted to take out the Notice of Motion. Both the Counsel were heard. However, the Notice of Motion was summarily rejected in view of the earlier two orders passed by this Court.

3. Aggrieved against the said order, the defendants filed Appeal No. 1291 of 1996. The aforesaid appeal came up for hearing on 4th December, 1996. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document