MANINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE Vs. MAHRAJ KUMAR SUDHANSU KANT ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by a defendant in a suit against an order passed on the 8th of January 1965, by the trial court, rejecting the security offered by the appellant, for being appointed as a receiver, in respect of the suit properties.

(2.) This Court had appointed him as a receiver of certain mining areas involved in the suit on the 5th October 1964 while disposing of a miscellaneous appeal in regard to the appointment of a receiver. He was given six weeks' time to furnish security for Rs. 50,000/-to the satisfaction of the trial court but he did not do so. In that very order it was stated that if he failed to furnish security a third party would be appointed as a receiver. When he offered belated security the trial court could not accept it and against that order, he came in appeal to this Court which, when disposing of it on the 21st December 1964, allowed him a further time till the 7th January 1965 to furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial court. After offering unacceptable security on two occasions during that period, he offered on the 6th of January, 1965, the security of live motor vehicles the total purchase value of which, according to him was Rs. 77,318/-. One of the vehicles was a jeep but others were trucks. In the alternative, he also offered to execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff objected to both on the ground that the total value of all the vehicles would not exceed more than Rs. 20,000/-, and the alternative offer of personal security was also unacceptable. The jeep car was of the year 1945, three trucks were of the years 1953, 1960 and 1961. Another truck was of the year 1945. The trial court found, on a reference to the motor vehicles registration books, that two vehicles of the year 1945 were bound by hire purchase agreement with Messrs Sunda Financing Corporation. There was no certificate of fitness of any of the trucks. One truck, as alleged by the plaintiff had met with an accident and was lying useless at Ranchi. On account of these reasons, the court thought that the security was not acceptable. It also dm not accept the offer of personal security bond. When the defendant found that none of his offers were acceptable, he made an alternative suggestion to the court that he may be allowed to deposit cash security of Rs. 10,000/- a month. This also was not accepted. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) We fail to see how the appeal can be maintainable. Learned counsel urged that by refusing to accept the security as offered by the defendant, the court virtually refused to appoint him as a receiver or to discharge him from the receivership as he was then continuing as a receiver, under an interim arrangement made by this Court. We are not inclined to concede to this contention. Sufficiency or adequacy of security is entirely a different matter. Refection of that does not amount, and particularly in the present case, to the discharge of the defendant from the receivership until a third party is selected and appointed as a receiver, defendant No. 1, in spite of the order passed on the 8th January 1965 was to continue, as a receiver. In that view, the present appeal is not maintainable and will have to be dismissed. As an application in revision the result will be the same, mere having been no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below.