Skip to content


Bai Mani Vs. Khimchand Gokaldas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal No. 16 of 1908
Judge
Reported in(1908)10BOMLR1037
AppellantBai Mani
RespondentKhimchand Gokaldas
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....by subordinate judge to district judge -refusal by the latter to appoint-appeal.; a subordinate judge recommended to the district judge the appointment of a receiver under the provisions of section 505 of the civil procedure code. the latter refused to make any appointment. on appeal to the high court: -; that no appeal lay against the order, which was passed under section 505 and not under section 503 of the civil procedure code, and respecting which no appeal was provided for by section 588 of the code.; birajan kooer v. ram churn lall mahata (1881) i.l.r. 7 cal. 719 followed. - - 2. the district judge having considered, the recommendations refused to authorise the judge to appoint either of the persons so recommended. 3. the application was made to him under the proviso to.....basil scott, c.j.1. this is an appeal from an order of the district judge of surat in miscellaneous application no. 33 of 1908 of the district file. that application was one in which the district judge considered the recommendation of the first class subordinate judge of surat that the defendant khimchand should be appointed a receiver in a suit no. 35 of 1907, and, in case of the recommendation not being accepted, that the nazir of his court should be appointed.2. the district judge having considered, the recommendations refused to authorise the judge to appoint either of the persons so recommended.3. the application was made to him under the proviso to section 505 of the civil procedure code, and under that section he had power to authorise the subordinate judge to appoint one of the.....
Judgment:

Basil Scott, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Surat in Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 1908 of the District file. That application was one in which the District Judge considered the recommendation of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat that the defendant Khimchand should be appointed a receiver in a suit No. 35 of 1907, and, in case of the recommendation not being accepted, that the Nazir of his Court should be appointed.

2. The District Judge having considered, the recommendations refused to authorise the Judge to appoint either of the persons so recommended.

3. The application was made to him under the proviso to Section 505 of the Civil Procedure Code, and under that section he had power to authorise the Subordinate Judge to appoint one of the persons recommended and he had also power to pass any other order. The order which he decided to pass was to refuse to allow the appointment of any receiver at all.

4. We are of opinion that that was an order passed under Section 505, and not under Section 503. It is, therefore, an order which is not appealable not being specified in the list of orders in Section 588. We are supported in this conclusion by the decision of Birajan Kooer v. RamChurn Lall Mahata I L R (1881) Cal. 719 We, therefore, think, that the preliminary objection which has been taken that no appeal lies is a good one and we dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //