- (1.)THIS is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (s), CPC, by the judgment-debtor against that part of order dated 11 -2-2002 by which he has been directed to have recourse to a separate suit for rendition of accounts and for payment of the amount by respondent No. 1 Chandrashekhar Mudliyar.
(2.)IT is not in dispute that in Civil Suit No. 32-A of 1984 of the Court of District Judge, Balaghat respondent No. 1 Chandrashekhar Mudliyar was appointed as the receiver under Order 40 Rule 1, CPC on 5-7-1985 and his receiver-ship came to an end on 23-9-1993. He, however, continued in possession of the petrol pump. By the impugned order dated 11-2-2002 the Executing Court directed respondent No. 1 Chandrashekhar Mudliyar to deliver possession of the petrol pump to appellant Naresh Maravi. That order was challenged by me respondent No. 1 in revision before this Court and that has been dismissed. S. L. P. was filed against that order in revision and that has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The appellant has got actual possession of the petrol pump on 16-2-2002. The appellant has challenged that part of order dated 11-2-2002 by which the Executing Court refused to direct the receiver to render accounts and pay the amount, if any, due from him for the period he was in possession of the petrol pump.
(3.)THE learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. Order 40 Rule 3 (b), CPC requires the receiver to "submit his accounts at such periods and in such form as the Court directs". Clause (c) of Rule 3 further provides that the receiver shall "pay the amount due from him as the Court directs". The receiver-ship of the respondent No. 1 came to an end on 23-9-1993 but he continued in possession of the petrol pump in that capacity upto 16-2-2002. Therefore, the view taken by the Executing Court that the appellant should file a separate suit against the receiver for rendition of accounts and for payment of the amount is not correct. The receiver can be directed under Order 40 Rules 3 and 4 to render accounts and pay the amount as per direction of the Court. This dispute can be decided under Section 47, CPC by the Executing Court. There is no need of driving the appellant to a separate suit.