SUKHI DEVI KANHAIYALAL Vs. DEENDAYAL SARDA
LAWS(RAJ)-2019-2-20
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (AT: JODHPUR)
Decided on February 27,2019

Sukhi Devi Kanhaiyalal Appellant
VERSUS
Deendayal Sarda Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The writ petition at hands has been preferred against the order dated 12.01.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court'), vide which petitioners' appeal against the order dated 10.12.2013, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') had been rejected.
(2.) The facts within the precincts of the legality of the order under challenge run as under:- The plaintiff's prepositus Kanhaiyalal filed a suit against the respondents for rendition of accounts and dissolution of a partnership firm, in which he was a partner. During the pendency of the suit aforesaid, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking appointment of Receiver. The Trial Court appointed one Satyanarayan Vyas as Receiver, thereafter when the matter came up before this Court in Appeal No.62/1984, one of the partner-respondent Mr. Deendayal Sharda was appointed as a Receiver. The said appeal came to be disposed of finally on 06.02.1984 with certain mandates to the Receiver duly enumerated in the order.
(3.) Subsequent thereto, the petitioners moved another application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code before this Court, which was registered as Civil Misc. Application No.114/1994. It was inter alia contended that the said Receiver Mr. Deendayal Sharda has failed to adhere to the terms of the order dated 16.02.1984 and has proceeded in a manner not conducive to his responsibilities as Receiver. This Court, vide its order dated 07.03.1999, disposed of the said application and permitted the petitioners to move the trial court, with the following observations:- "As regards the removal of Shri Deen Dayal as a receiver and appointment of a fresh receiver, the learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant be permitted to make a prayer in this regard before the trial court. Learned counsel for the non-applicant does not object to this prayer and he agrees that the application for removal of non-applicant from the post of receiver as well as the application for enforcement of the order of the Court under Rule 4 of Order 40 C.P.C. may be moved before the trial court and the same may be disposed of in accordance with law. The application is disposed of accordingly." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.