- (1.) Pre-deceased son's widow of Maghi Ram, namely, Smt. Kaushalya Devi, filed a suit for dissolution of joint Hindu family firm M/s Maghi Ram and Sons, Commission Agents, Shop No. 37, New Grain Market, Nabha and for settlement of accounts in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Nabha, Along with the suit, an application for appointment of a Receiver was also moved. The trial Judge appointed Shri B.S. Juneja, Advocate, as a Receiver to take possession of account books, property and other assets of the joint Hindu family firm, vide order dated October 21, 1988. This order was challenged in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who disposed of the same by order dated October 31, 1988, observing thus :- "Keeping in view the principles governing the appointment of receivers as laid down under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and loking to the interest of the justice, it is ordered that the appointment of Shri B.S. Juneja, Advocate, as Receiver is set aside, instead it is ordered that the business under the name and style of M/s Maghi Ram and Sons of Shop No. 37, New Grain Market, Nahba shall be run by Maghi Ram, Prem Chand in conjunction with the two persons to be supplied by Kaushalya Devi etc. the heirs of Ram Chand, who will not interfere in the running of business of firm Maghi Ram Prem Chand. Maghi Ram and Prem Chand shall strike every transaction in their presence or in the presence of either. If for one reason or the other, neither can be present on any particular occasion, the transaction will be done by Maghi Ram or Prem Chand in the presence of Smt. Kaushalya Devi. Bank accounts will be operated by Maghi Ram or Prem Chand as is the case earlier. Bank Managers of the respective banks will furnish details of the accounts on every Monday to Smt. Kaushalya Devi or her representatives aforesaid. Account books may be written by Maghi Ram or Prem Chand or by their Muneem but in the presence of Smt. Kaushalya Devi or her representatives and they will supply them extracts of the account books every day in the evening before the shop is closed. Court below will get an inventory of the books of accounts, stock etc. prepared through some Local Commissioner to be appointed by him for the purpose. Local Commissioner will be directed to procure the signatures of Maghi Ram or Prem Chand as also those of either of those representative of Smt. Kaushalya Devi or that of Kaushalya Devi herself on each page of the account books. Court below will see that the Local Commissioner arranges the supply of photostat copies of the entries of the books of accounts to both the parties. Kaushalya Devi and the representatives to be supplied by her will supervise the conduct of business by Maghi Ram and Prem Chand and they are once again warned not to stall the running of business by their act and conduct butt only to exercise vigilance and supervision over the conduct of business by Maghi Ram and Prem Chand. Sh. B.S. Juneia, Advocate is directed to have the shop unlocked in the presence of Maghi Ram or Prem Chand and Kaushalya Devi or the representatives to be supplied her. Smt. Kaushalya Devi will supply representatives at any rate by 5.11.1988. Court will remove Shri B.S. Juneja, Advocate, after the appointment of the Local Commissioner and Shri B.S. Juneja, Advocate will unlock the shop in the presence of the Local Commissioner and the Local Commissioner will do his duties as aforesaid." Maghi Ram, etc. aggrieved against the order of the appellate Court moved this Court through C.R. No. 3187 of 1988. The revision petition was disposed of vide order dated February 14, 1992, observing thus :- "Along with the suit for dissolution of the Joint Hindu Family Firm M/s Maghi Ram and Sons, Commission Agent and for settlement of accounts filed by the plaintiff-respondent, an application under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also moved which was declined trial Judge, but on appeal the first Appellate Court gave some directions. Aggrieved against the decision of the first appellate Court, defendant-petitioners, Maghi Ram and Sons, Commission Agent, etc. came up in Civil Revision in this Court. Through the present application, it has been pointed out that since the civil suit giving rise to the revision petition had been dismissed for non-prosecution on October 22, 1991, resultantly this revision petition has been rendered as infructuous. The learned counsel has also placed on record certified copy of the order of the trial Judge. In view of the factual statement in the application and the order placed on record, the Civil Miscellaneous is allowed and as a consequence thereto, revision petition is dismissed having been rendered infructuous. I order accordingly." Vide my order dated June 2, 1992 passed in Civil Misc. No. 3372-CII of 1992, I directed the Receiver Shri B.S. Juneja, Advocate of Nabha, who appeared on that date to hand over the keys of the Shop to Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, counsel for the revision petitioner.
(2.) Now the question arises to whom the keys of the shop, which is lying vacant, be handed over. Inventory of goods and articles lying in the shop has already been prepared. Keeping in view of the totality of circumstances, I direct that the keys of the shop be handed over to Smt. Kaushalya Devi, revision petitioners. The claim with regard to the shop will be adjudicated upon in an appropriate proceeding by the competent Court. C.M. is disposed of accordingly.;