B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) This is a defendants First Appeal from Order challenging the order dated 11 -10-1991 passed by the Civil Judge, Hardoi, appointing Sri Ajai Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate as a Receiver, under Order 40(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code).
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for permanent injunction directing the defendant-appellant not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 over the suit property on the allegations that the defendant-appellant was neither a partner nor has got any right nor he has invested any amount. It was a fact that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had obtained the land from his brother Bramha Prakash and installed a diesel pump over the land. He also constructed a show-room and invested certain amount for purchasing furniture. Plaintiff-respondent had advanced Rs. 40,000/- as a partner and not as a loan on the pronote or on any agreement and an agreement was entered into on 24-7-1987. A suit for the cancellation of the tenancy has been filed by Bramha Prakash, the brother of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the same is pending. The plaintiff had also given a notice dated 23-6-1990. The plaintiff was in fact a partner in the diesel pump business. An application for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and on that application status quo was ordered to be maintained by order dated 26-11-1990. Another application (49 Ga) was moved by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for appointment of a Receiver so that the property including Pali Vikas Centre and the diesel pump business may not be dissipated and that the suit property be not wasted by the defendant-appellant and the plaintiffs right in the said diesel pump business and Pali Vikas Centre be kept safe till the disposal of the suit or in any case till the plaintiff-respondent is paid back the amount along with the interest advanced by him. After considering the prima facie case and taking the appointment of the receiver just and convenient the learned Civil Judge has passed the impugned order appointing Sri Ajai Kumar Dwivedi Advocate as the Receiver directing him to maintain the accounts of the firm and to furnish it before the Court after every two weeks and to supervise the property in dispute, and maintain the accounts. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) In this case both parties agree that the appeal itself be decided on merits. Consequently we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.;