JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The present Chamber Summons has been taken out on behalf of the plaintiff for two prayers. The first prayer is to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint as per schedule of amendment annexed to the Chamber Summons as "A". The plaintiff is seeking to add in the title of the plaint, notice of motion and all other proceedings, the name of Narinder Gupta as Plaintiff No. 2. He has also prayed for all the necessary consequential amendments in the proceedings. The amendments are of formal nature and there was no serious objection raised on behalf of the defendants. The Chamber Summons is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (b). Amendment to be carried out within four weeks from today.

2. The defendants have seriously contested the second prayer in the Chamber Summons that is the prayer for appointment of a Court Receiver of the suit property described in Exhibit-A to the plaint in the above suit with all the powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and also with power to take possession of the portion duly vacated by the Central Warehousing Corporation as described in the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons.

3. I have heard both the learned Counsel for their respective parties. Both were equally vehement. Shri Kadam, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that inspite of an interim order and injunction passed by this Court the defendants have created third party rights in favour of M/s. Garware Synthetics Ltd. in respect of the factory structure forming part of the suit property more particularly described in Exh. A to the plaint. He has submitted that the defendants have flouted the order passed by this Court by parting with the possession of the factory structure forming part of the suit property on leave and licence basis to M/s. Garware Synthetics Ltd. by entering into a so called leave and licence agreement for definite period of sixty months ending 31st December 2000. Shri Kadam has therefore very strong apprehension that the every part of the suit property subsequently vacated by the Central Warehousing Corporation and handed over by them to the Defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 1 are very likely to create third party rights in respect of the said portion of the suit property in breach of the orders passed by this Court. He has therefore prayed for appointment of the Court Receiver for the whole suit property.

4. Shri Samdani, the learned Counsel for the defendants, has on the contrary opposed grant of any such prayers. The learned Counsel has denied that any third party right was created in favour of M/s. Garware Synthetics Ltd. According to him, the leave and licence agreement between the parties did not create any rights in favour of the said M/s. Garware Synthetics Ltd. Shri Samdani argued that the said company was merely given a licence to use the premises whereby no rights in their favour were created. Shri Samdani further argued that the interim order passed by this Court did not cover the structure given to the said company on leave and licence basis. Shri Samdani further submitted that the development rights created in favour of the defendants in the agreement were confined to the open lands and they did not include the structures on the land. The defendants were sold the development rights of all the three properties as far as the open space is concerned and the structures were not included in the transaction. He has also submitted that the agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 did not create any right as contemplated under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Shri Samdani further pointed out that the plaintiffs are fully protected by the interim order passed by this Court injuncting the defendants from creating any third party rights and therefore, there was no question of appointing any Court Receiver for the said property of for the entire property. I do not find much substance in the submiss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document