1. Defendant no.1 has filed these two Notice of Motions for various reliefs. Notice no. 765 of 2009 is filed inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the orders dated 11th September, 2007 and 3rd October 2005 passed by this court disposing of Suit No. 4816 of 2000 and further seeks that the orders dated 2nd December 2000, 18th June, 2002 and 2nd February, 2001 be set aside and/or recalled. Defendants also seek that court receiver shall take possession of the properties pursuant to the order dated 2nd December, 2000 and shall restore the position as on that date by removing the persons that may be found in the premises.

2. Notice of Motion No. 591 of 2009 is filed by the original 1st defendant in Suit No. 2687 of 2001 inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the order dated 6th May 2008, 9th January 2004 and 5th April, 2004. Defendant no.1 has also prayed that the court receiver appointed by this court on 9th January, 2004 be directed to take possession of the properties pursuant to the order dated 5th April, 2004 and restore the position as on that date by removing the persons that may be found in the premises. By consent of parties, both the Notice of Motions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these two Notice of Motions which emerged from the pleadings and documents are as under:-

I will first summarise the facts in the Notice of Motion No. 765 of 2009 in Suit No 4816 of 2000.

4. In Suit No. 4816 of 2000 it was case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the original defendant Mr.Ramgopal R.Agarwal were the partners of a registered partnership firm known as M/s.Siddhivinayak Enterprises carrying on business at 1st Floor Premises, entire left wing situated at 249, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002 by virtue of a partnership dated 16th August, 2000 on the terms and conditions recorded therein. According to the plaintiff both parties were having equal shares in the said alleged partnership. According to the plaintiff the defendant was managing all the affairs of the partnership firm from the very beginning in consultation with the plaintiff. The plaintiff had alleged to have contributed Rs.9 lacs by cheque from his own fund and from his family members in the partnership firm. It is case of the plaintiff that the defendant was managing the affairs of the partnership at his whims and fancies and in the manner he liked by taking advantage of his attending the day to day business of the firm and was signing the hundies in favour of the different parties and was obtaining loans in the name of the firm behind the back of the plaintiff and did not render any accounts.

5. It is alleged in the plaint that the said partnership firm had only one immoveable property i.e. businesses premises at 1st Floor Premises, (entire left wing) situated at 249, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002. It is also alleged that the said firm was however using godown on the Ground Floor of the said building for the purpose of storing the goods of the said firm. It is case of the plaintiff that on 7th November, 2000 defendant told the plaintiff to go away from the office of the immediately and forcibly removed all the keys of the office. On 21st November, 2000 the plaintiff filed Suit No. 4186 of 2000 against the original defendant inter alia praying for a declaration that the suit firm stood dissolved as and from the date of filing of the suit or such other date as this court may deem fit. Plaintiff also prayed for an order and decree against the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.9 lacs or such other amount as may be found due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff coming to his share with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In the plaint, the plaintiff also prayed for interim reliefs inter alia praying for appointment of court receiver of all the assets, partnership premises carrying on business at first floor premises and go