JUDGMENT :

FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.

1. The present appeal challenges an order dated 13th September 2023 passed by the Trial Court in Notice of Motion No. 4568 of 2017 (hereinafter, referred to as the “impugned order”) that was preferred by the Appellant / Plaintiff. By the said Notice of Motion, the Appellant sought appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay in respect of Shop No. 15A situated on the ground floor of the building popularly known as Heera Panna Shopping Centre located at the junction of Bhulabhai Desai Road and Tardeo Road at Haji Ali, Mumbai 400034 (hereinafter, referred to as the “suit shop”) together with a direction to the Court Receiver to take possession thereof from the Respondents / Defendants or any other person/s found to be in possession and hand over the same to the Appellant.

2. The Notice of Motion was principally founded upon the allegation that Respondent No. 2 had violated earlier orders passed by this Court, breached the undertaking dated 17th July 1986 furnished to this Court and acted contrary to the Agency Agreement executed by her with the Court Receiver in respect of the suit shop. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected these contentions and dismissed the Notice of Motion.

BRIEF FACTS

3. For the purposes of adjudication of the present Appeal, the relevant facts may be briefly stated thus:

(a) In August 1980, the Plaintiff instituted a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 6th January 1976 allegedly executed by Defendant No. 1 in its favour in respect of Shop No. 16 in Heera Panna Shopping Centre.

(b) Along with the suit, the Plaintiff preferred Notice of Motion No. 1335 of 1980 seeking interim and ad-interim reliefs. By an order dated 3rd September 1980, this Court granted an injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from parting with possession of, disposing of, dealing with or encumbering the suit shop.

(c) Thereafter, by order dated 5th August 1981, this Court recorded the statement of the Advocate for Defendant No. 1 that his client had not parted with possession of the suit shop and consequently confirmed the earlier order of injunction. Since a Court Receiver had already been appointed in respect of Heera Panna Shopping Centre in Suit No. 1477 of 1977, liberty was granted to the Plaintiff to seek appointment of a Court Receiver in the event the order in the said suit was vacated.

(d) According to the Plaintiff, despite the aforesaid orders, Defendant No. 1 created third-party rights in favour of Defendant No. 2 under a purported back-dated agreement dated 27th August 1976 and placed her in possession of the suit shop on 9th November 1983. This led the Plaintiff to file Notice of Motion No. 893 of 1984 seeking reliefs against Defendant No. 2.

(e) By order dated 12th April 1984, this Court restrained the Respondents from disposing of, assigning, transferring, selling, encumbering or otherwise dealing with the suit shop. The Court Receiver was directed to inspect the premises and ascertain the identity of the person in possession without dispossessing such person.

(f) Upon inspection, the Court Receiver found Defendant No. 2 in possession of the suit shop. Consequently, by order dated 27th March 1986, Defendant No. 2 was permitted to continue in possession as Agent of the Court Receiver, without payment of compensation or furnishing security. The Court Receiver was directed to affix his board upon the premises and the interim protection granted earlier was continued.

(g) Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 2 executed an affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 17th July 1986 undertaking, inter alia, not to alienate, transfer, assign, encumber or otherwise deal with the suit shop and further undertaking that she would use the premises only for her business of running a department store and would not part with possession thereof save in the course of carrying on such business.

(h) In or about 2012, the suit stood transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court. Subsequently, Respondent N