L LACHMI NARAIN Vs. PEAREY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from an order dated 8 November 1930, passed by the Munsif of Hathras in the execution department.

(2.) Kedar Nath is a partner of a firm of which Lachmi Narain is the other partner. The interest of Kedar Nath in this firm was attached by the decree-holder and the Court passed an order under Order 21, Rule 49 charging the interest of the judgment-debtor partner in the partnership property and appointing a receiver of his share. It has to be admitted that no previous notice of the application, as required by Sub-rule (4), was issued to the other partner. This was undoubtedly irregular. The learned Munsif seems to suggest that this was cured by a subsequent notice dated 24 June 1930. But that notice related to the question whether the partners should not be prohibited from realizing any debts in future. The irregularity however is not now of any serious significance because the applicant does not object to the appointment of the receiver, nor wants that he should be removed.

(3.) The Court did not make any express order directing accounts and inquiries, but it was understood that this followed from the appointment of the receiver. The Court did order that the receiver should take over the books of the firm. As the applicant was the manager of the firm and he was no party to the execution proceedings, there was an irregularity in directing the receiver to take possession of the books, for it was intended that he should do so even against the will of the managing partner. The books were filed in Court by the receiver and were ultimately taken away by the managing partner. Later on, at the instance of the decree-holder, the books were ordered to be produced, in Court and they were produced at one time. They were taken back by the manager but were again filed in Court. They have accordingly been brought into Court under its order. They had not been seized by the receiver. In this there was no irregularity. It is open to the learned Munsif not to allow these books to be returned to the managing partner if he has any reasonable ground for suspecting that they have in any way been tampered with.