S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a reference, dated 2-12-1996, made by the learned Additional Commissioner-III, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in respect of the revision petition No. 229/130/91, Prem Shanker v. Ramesh Chandra etc., arising out of the order dated 30-7-1991, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 176 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending to set aside the impugned order and to remand the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits, according to law, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that during the pendency of a suit under Section 176 of the Act, an application alongwith an affidavit was moved on behalf of the plaintiffs for appointment of a receiver, which was allowed by the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 30-7-1991, appointing a receiver and therefore, it is against this order that a revision petition was preferred by Prem Shanker before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has made this reference to the Board alongwith is aforesaid recommendation. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None responded for the opposite party despite due notice and repeated calls at the time of hearing. Supporting the reference, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, the learned Counsel for the revisionist inter-alia, in a nut shell, urged since the recommendation, made by him is quite reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the same may be accepted in toto.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the submissions, made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner and have also scanned the record on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction and illegal as observed by the learned Additional Commissioner. It is a fact that he has dealt with the matter in question in depth logically and analytically, considering each and every aspect of the same and therefore, I am fully convinced that the recommendation made by him, is quite reasonable and logical in correct perspective of law, as the appointment of a receiver without determination of shares of the parties, concerned is nothing but an illegality and nullity, as per the case law reported in 1987 RD 414, and therefore, the recommendation made by him very richly deserves acceptance in toto.;