The appointment of a Court Receiver is discretionary and requires a strong prima facie case; insufficient evidence of joint ownership led to the quashing of the receiver's appointment.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 9 November 2020 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.1415 of 2020 in S.C.Suit No.1099 of 2020 and Notice of Motion No.1537 of 2020 in Counter Claim No.6 of 2020, whereby the learned Judge was persuaded to partly allow Notice of Motion No.1415 of 2020 taken out by the Appellant and Notice of Motion No.1537 of 2020 taken out by the Respondents-Defendants, and thereby appointed the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, to keep the accounts of the two shops with all the powers under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and appoint the Plaintiff as the agent of the Court Receiver to carry on the business in the suit shops till the final disposal of the Suit.

2. Mr. Vijaykumar Joglekar, the deceased husband of the Plaintiff, was the brother of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is the wife of Defendant No.1. The deceased husband of the Plaintiff – Vijaykumar was running a medicine store in Shop Nos.15 and 16, Ram Nivas, Ranade Road, Dadar (W) (the suit shops), under the name and style of ‘Vijay Stores’ since the year 1967-68. The certificate under the Shops and Establishment Act and the Health Licence were issued in the name of Mr. Vijaykumar. All the requisite licences and permissions were also issued by the competent authorities in the name of Mr. Vijaykumar, including the GST registration certificate. Mr. Vijaykumar passed away on 8 August 2019.

3. The Plaintiff asserts, from 3 November 2019, the Plaintiff resumed the business at the suit shops. A Municipal Health Licence came to be issued in the name of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleged, since February 2020, Defendant No.1 started visiting the suit shops under the pretext of helping out the Plaintiff. On account of the disruption due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the Plaintiff took help of Defendant No.1 in managing the said shops. Taking undue advantage of the trust reposed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 allegedly flicked various amounts from the suit shops and sold stock without intimation to the Plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff asserted, in the month of August 2020, the Defendants tried to forcibly take possession of the suit shops. The matter was reported to the police. As the Defendants continued to threaten to invade the rights of the Plaintiff over the suit shops, the Plaintiff was constrained to institute a Suit purportedly seeking injunction against the Defendants and their agents and assigns from entering into the suit shops and disturbing Plaintiff’s use, occupation and possession of the suit shops. In the said suit, the Plaintiff took out Notice of Motion No.1415 of 2020 seeking temporary injunction against the Defendants, their agents and assigns from entering upon and disturbing Plaintiff’s use, occupation and possession of the suit shops.

5. The Respondents-Defendants resisted the suit by filing a Written Statement and Counter Claim. The Defendants took out Notice of Motion No.1537 of 2020, and, in turn, sought a mandatory injunction against the Plaintiff to allow the Defendants to peacefully run the business at the suit shops in compliance with the understanding arrived at between the parties on 11 November 2020, to order the plaintiff to render true and correct accounts of the business from 2 August 2020 and in the alternative, to appoint Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, with all the powers under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Interim order to appoint the Court Commissioner for local investigation and also a direction to the Plaintiff to deposit the entire amount with respect to the sales of August and September 2020 was also prayed for.

6. The Defendants premised the aforesaid prayers in the Counter Claim on the suit shops being the property of the father of Defendant No.1 and the deceased husband of the Plaintiff. The Defendants claimed, Defendant No.1’s father was running the business in the suit shops. After the demise of the fath