The court upheld the authority of the Receiver and the validity of the directions for possession of the flats, emphasizing the obstructive nature of the review application.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) AN order based upon the directions of the Division Bench dated October 31,1996 was passed by this court on July 20,2006. It is unacceptable to defendants" No. 1 to 3. Therefore they have filed an application seeking its review. They allege that the order dated July 20,2006 has been obtained by the plaintiff and defendants No. 5 to 13 by fraud and misrepresentation. They further allege that the order so passed has vitally affected their interest in the suit property.

( 2 ) BEFORE I deal with the application it is essential to give background of the case. The bone of contention between the parties is property bearing Municipal No. 20 A friends Colony New Delhi measuring 4300 sq. ft. It was owned by the plaintiff col. S. J. Chaudhr. On April 23,1997 he entered into a Collaboration Agreement with defendants No. 1 to 3 who shall hereinafter be referred to as builders. The principal term of the Agreement was that the builder was to develop the property in accordance with the sanctioned building plan at his own cost and out of the developed property 54% of the total saleable space on each floor of the residential building together with proportionate right, title and interest in the land was to belong to the builder and 46% to the plaintiff. The building was to consist of 10 flats; 5 flats being proportionate to 54% (of the builder) and five flats being proportionate to 46% (to the owner ).

( 3 ) IT appears that the Agreement ran into rough weather. The owner alleged that the builder constructed the flats contrary to the sanctioned plans and converted five flats falling to his share into nine flats. He further alleged that the builder alienated the entire 54 % of the built up areas falling to his share to defendants 5 to 13, received from them a sum of Rs. 2. 5 crores and diverted those funds to his other investments. He also alleged that having received more than the amount spent in the building the builder lost interest in developing the property and he committed several breaches of the Agreement. This led the owner to file the present suit against the builder as well as against defendants 5 to 13 to whom the builder had sold 54% of the built area falling to his share. "it seems that because of the pendency of the suit the construction of the building as per the Collaboration Agreement came to a stand still and as both the plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 to 13 had much in stake in the early completion of the building they moved a joint application under Order 23 rule 1 and 3 of the CPC being IA No. 11266/95 requesting for the appointment of the nominee of the defendants No. 5 to 13 as the Receiver to complete further construction. The defendants also filed an application for appointment of the Receiver. This Court vide order dated January 12, 1996 acceded to the prayer for appointment of the receiver but instead of appointing the nominee of defendant No. 5 to 13 appointed defendant No. 2 as the Court Receiver for completing the remaining work, obtaining completion certificate and the occupancy certificate and to do such other works/ acts necessary for the purpose. Aggrieved by the order so passed the owner and defendants No. 5 to 13 preferred an appeal to the Division bench. The Division Bench by its order of October 31,1996 reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and instead of defendant No. 2 appointed Shri Vinay bagla who was the nominee of the plaintiff and defendants No. 5 to 13 as the receiver and also gave certain directions. The following directions are relevant for our purpose. :

(ii) "shri Vinay Bagla son of Shri S. N. Bagla resident of 30-A/1 Friends Colony, new Delhi is appointed the Receiver who shall complete the remaining construction of the building subject to revalidation of the plans by the MCD and other local/ statutory authorities involved and for that purpose the Receiver shall have authority to" : (iii) "the Receiver will at the cost of flat buyers defendants 5 to 13 make arrang