O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) By means of Civil Misc. Writ No. 6404 of 1999 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 9.2.1999 passed by respondent No. 1, 1st Additional District Judge, Badaun appointing Receiver in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1992 arising out of Suit No. 65 of 1982 instituted by Shrawan Kumar, respondent No. 2 to the petition was challenged. After having heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, Krishna Bhagwan Agarwal, and, Vishnu Bhagwan Agarwal as well as Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 2, Shrawan Kumar Agarwal, the writ petition was finally disposed of on April 19, 1999 by an elaborate and detailed order after consideration of the law cited on behalf of the rival parties. The order of appointment of receiver passed by the lower appellate court, was confirmed as it required no interference. With a view to give a practical shape and to make the bald order passed by the lower appellate court workable, certain directions/guidelines were issued. The defendant-petitioner No. 1, Krishna Bhagwan Agarwal and Shrawan Kumar Agarwal plaintiff-respondent No. 2 were appointed as the joint receivers of the partnership business of firm M/s. Ayodhya Prasad and Sons which has branch business establishments at Bilsi, Sahaswan, Ujhiani, Delhi, Kasganj, and Bisawali. The order dated 19.4.1999 was to take effect from 26.4.1999.
(2.) On 26.4.1999, three separate applications supported by affidavits have been moved. One set of applications comprises the Review Petition No. 28200 of 1999, along with stay application No. 28199 of 1999 filed on behalf of the petitioners. Krishna Bhagwan Agarwal and Vishnu Bhagwan Agarwal. In the review petition, the petitioners have pointed out that the order dated April 19, 1999, whereby Writ. Petition No. 6404 of 1999 was finally disposed of, suffers from various errors apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as this Court has addressed itself on the facts touching the merits of the case without there being legal foundation for the same on record ; that the findings are prejudicial to the petitioners in the pending suit before the trial court ; that a large number of observations particularly those mentioned at page 14 of the judgment are based on mere assumptions and therefore, prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners in the pending suit : that writ petition has been finally disposed of in the absence of the respondents without hearing them except the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 who had filed the caveat and consequently, the order under review is vitiated on account of flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice ; that the scheme as formulated by this Court with regard to the appointment of the joint receivers is unworkable and contrary to the established principles of appointment of the receiver. On the above grounds, it is prayed that the order dated 19.4.1999 passed by this Court be reviewed and set aside and through Application No. 28199 of 1999 supported with an affidavit of one Narendra Kumar, who claims himself to be the pairokar of the petitioners, it is prayed that the operation of the order dated 19.4.1999 insofar as it relates to the appointment of the joint receivers from 26.4.1999 be stayed.
(3.) The other application No. 28060 of 1999 has been filed by Shanti Lal son of Asarfi Lal who is respondent No. 14 in the writ petition and defendant No. 10 in the suit, for the recall of the order dated 19.4.1999 primarily on the ground that he had not been served with the summons/ notice in the original suit as well as in appeal and the writ petition and the order dated 19.4.1999 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and that the said order has caused serious prejudice to his personal interest and the business which is being carried on by him as being its sole proprietor has been put in Jeopardy. It is alleged by Shanti Lal, applicant, that he is engaged in the business of running petrol pump known as Nand Auto Service in Kasganj, district Etah of which he is the sole proprietor and has entered into agreement with the Indian Oil Corporation (for short I.O.C.) in terms of which the constitution of the business concern cannot be altered without prior consent of I.O.C. and that in addition to the agreement for supply of the oil. the applicant has himself got registered under the U. P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance Order), 1981. According to the applicant-Shanti Lal Nand Auto Service does not form part of the properties of the partnership firm M/s Ayodhya Prasad and Sons and. therefore, no relief in respect thereto can be claimed treating it to be property of the said firm and consequently, the order of joint receivership cannot take within its sweep the business of the petrol pump and Auto Service. It was also pointed out that a specific issue No. 9 "Whether the name of Shanti Lal in Petrol Pump Kasganj is Benami, if so its effect? has been framed for decision by the trial court and in the absence of adjudication of the said issue, the order of joint receivership cannot be enforced against Shanti Lal, respondent No. 14. It has further been averred that the applicant Shanti Lal has nothing to do with the partnership business of M/s. Ayodhya Prasad and Sons as he is doing his own independent business in the name of Nand Auto Service right from the year 1968. The application of recall on behalf of Shanti Lal, therefore, is confined to only one property, i.e., Petrol Pump situate at Kasganj, of which he claims himself to be the sole proprietor.;