Subhasis Dasgupta - (1.) The impugned order No. 35 dated 18.05.2018 passed by the learned Judge 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 42 of 2016 making an order of appointment of receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Learned advocate for the revisionists/petitioners submitted that appointment of receiver was made ex parte without giving him an opportunity of hearing. It was the contention of the revisionists/petitioners that petitioners are the absolute owners of the suit property and for that purpose appointment of receiver, if at all needed, should have been made by the Court below upon giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioners, without which the order making appointment of receiver was illegal. Further contention of the revisionists was that no ratification was obtained from the legal heirs left by deceased plaintiff No.2, who were admittedly brought on record by way of substitution, and as such without lawful ratification having obtained by the constituted attorney, who instituted instant suit for on behalf of the plaintiffs, the instant prayer for appointment of receiver was not good in the sense of law. Adverting to such proposition, as mentioned hereinabove, the revisionist proposed to challenge the maintainability of the petition filed by the opposite parties praying for appointment of receiver, under Order 40, Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC.
(3.) Learned advocate for the opposite parties repelling the contention raised by the petitioners/revisionists submitted that learned Court below committed no error in making appointment of receiver for the protection of suit property. The ratification, as proposed to be obtained by revisionists/petitioners, was no longer needed in the present case, as the plaintiff No.2 was very much alive, the date when the petition prayer for appointment of receiver was made on 28.6.16.;