D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Original Suit No. 548, of 1987, was filed by one Rama Ram Sonkar against one Mahendra Kumar and another, claiming a relief in respect of the accounting of the business from 1984 till the date of the suit and to pay profit payable to the plaintiff and that the defendant No. 2, shall not be permitted to stay with his family inside the godown.
(2.) In the suit, an application for appointment of receiver was filed by the plaintiff. By an order dated 28.5.1990, one Sri Sachidanand Singh was appointed as receiver. By an order dated 1.9.1990, the appointment of the said Sri Sachidanand Singh was recalled. Shri B.K. Varma. Assistant Manager, LPG, Indian Oil Corporation. Ghazipur, was appointed as receiver for ensuring distribution of Gas Cylinder in connection with the business of the plaintiff. On 7.9.1990, an application was filed by the said Shri B.K. Varma, Assistant Manager. LPG, Indian Oil Corporation, Ghazipur, praying that he should not be appointed as receiver. Despite such application by an order dated 7.9.1990, the order dated 1.9.1990, was confirmed. Subsequently by an order dated 21.12.1990, the plaintiff Rama Ram Sonkar was appointed as receiver on the basis of the application filed by him. In the said order dated 21.12.1990, after appointing Rama Ram Sonkar as receiver, further direction was given to the Indian Oil Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "IOC" in short), that it should ensure and supervise the distribution of LPG cylinder through the receiver. At the same time, the IOC was asked to show cause as to why it has not complied with the order dated 7.9.1990 and why it should not ensure distribution of LPG Cylinder. A copy of the order dated 21.12.1990 was sent to the District Magistrate for ensuring compliance. An application was filed by the plaintiff before the Court for seeking compliance of the order by the IOC. But the same was dismissed by the learned trial court on the ground that the IOC was not a party to the proceeding, therefore. It could not be compelled to comply with the said order. Subsequently, the IOC was added as party defendant in the proceeding. Thereupon when the compliance was sought for by the IOC at the instance of the plaintiff, the IOC had filed its objection being 36 Ga 2. In the said objection. It was pointed out that the plaintiff owes a sum of Rs. 8.65 lakhs to IOC and that the plaintiff had to comply with the written agreement and conditions, on the other hand, it had flouted and violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and that distribution of LPG Cylinder is being made through some other agency and that the question relating to distribution of LPG Cylinder is not the subject of the suit which is related only to the accounting between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, therefore, there is no necessity of compliance of the order dated 21.12.1990 nor the plaintiff had any right to get it done. This objection was overruled by the Court by an order dated 11.5.1993 directing compliance of the order dated 21.12.1990.
(3.) The IOC had filed the instant FAFO No. 862 of 1993, challenging the said order dated 21.12.1990 and the order dated 11.5.1993. In this appeal, an interim order was passed on 19.7.1996, by this Court. In the said order, certain directions were given including a direction for appointing another person as receiver for the purpose of accounting the firm's account while the system of distribution of LPG Cylinder should be continued. In this situation, it was prayed on behalf of the appellant that the appeal be decided on merit.;