SHANTARAM HIRACHAND DANEZ Vs. NARAYAN BAPUSA FULPAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgement and decree dated June 22, 1987 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Nasik in Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1985 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yeola on 10-12-1984 in Suit No. 46 of 1977 decreeing plaintiffs suit for eviction is under challenge. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the suit for eviction was filed by the Court Receiver without obtaining leave of the Court which appointed him and, therefore, the said suit being bad in law right from inception, the decree passed therein is also bad in law and unsustainable.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant and necessary for deciding the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are :---

(3.) NO material was placed by the Court Receiver that before filing the suit he had obtained requisite leave of the Court. It may be assumed therefore that the Court Receiver filed the suit for eviction of the tenant without obtaining leave of the Court. The fact is thereafter the landlord was substituted in place of Receiver and after the trial landlords suit for eviction has been decreed. The question that needs to be considered is whether in the facts and circumstances aforestated when the suit was filed by the Court Receiver without obtaining leave of the Court and thereafter the Court Receiver was substituted by the landlord, irregularity in filing of the suit by the Court Receiver is cured or not?