Skip to content


Sri Lal, D.H. Vs. W.C. Irving, J.D. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rr. Nos. 1525 to 1527 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Cal506
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 115; ;Constitution of India - Article 227
AppellantSri Lal, D.H.
RespondentW.C. Irving, J.D. and ors.
Appellant AdvocatePanchanan Choudhury and ;Nirmal Chandra Choudhury, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateBhabesh Narayan Bose, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....the petnr. had originally prayed for the appointment of a receiver & an order on the chief accounts officer & the divisional accounts officer of the east indian rly. for making over the provident fund money of these rly. servants to the receiver. the munsif had appointed a receiver & directed the chief accounts officer & the divisional accounts officer to make over such provident fund money to the receiver. the rly. officials came up to this ct. & a single judge of this ct. in three revn. cases nos. 1999 to 2001 of 1949, decided that there was nothing in law to prevent the appointment of a receiver in execution but the provident fund money could not be made over, under the statute, to any one except the depositor himself. when the case went back the petnr. further prayed to the.....
Judgment:

K.C. Chunder, J.

1. These three rules were issued against three orders of the Munsif of Burdwan. It appears that the petnr. in all these three applns. was the D. H. & the J. Ds. were rly. servants. The petnr. had originally prayed for the appointment of a Receiver & an order on the Chief Accounts Officer & the Divisional Accounts Officer of the East Indian Rly. for making over the provident fund money of these rly. servants to the Receiver. The Munsif had appointed a Receiver & directed the Chief Accounts Officer & the Divisional Accounts Officer to make over such provident fund money to the Receiver. The Rly. Officials came up to this Ct. & a single Judge of this Ct. in three revn. cases Nos. 1999 to 2001 of 1949, decided that there was nothing in law to prevent the appointment of a Receiver in execution but the provident fund money could not be made over, under the statute, to any one except the depositor himself. When the case went back the petnr. further prayed to the Munsif that the Officials of the East Indian Rly. be directed to furnish information to the Receiver & the Munsif after taking up all the matters & hearing the parties passed three orders. He first of all held that the Rly. Officials owed no debt to the petnr. D. H. to supply any information to the Receiver & could not be directed to do so. Secondly, he held that as by the order of this Ct. the Receiver could not receive the provident fund money which had to be paid over direct to the depositor under the statute there was no necessity to continue a useless Receiver. He therefore, held that the Receiver should be discharged & ordered accordingly. Finally, finding that there was nothing further was asked to be done in that execution case he dismissed the whole execution case itself.

2. An omnibus petn. in revn. Under Section 115, Civil P. C., & Article 227, Const. Ind. has been filed in each of these cases in this Ct. Nothing is a greater abuse of both Section 115, Civil P. C., and of Article 227 of the Constitution than these three applns. There is no question of jurisdiction involved & there is no such gross injustice done as would call for an exercise of our powers of superintendence under the Constitution. Apart from this, as the execution case has been dismissed no further question of continuance of any Receiver or of supplying information to such a Receiver can arise. The order dismissing the execution case could be set aside by way of an appeal & no such appeal was filed & the order is final. Therefore these interlocutory orders cannot, after the final order of dismissal of the execution petn. be at all agitated before us. To proceed further all the orders of the learned Munsif were correct orders & therefore no interference is called for also on that ground.

3. The result is that all the three rules are discharged with costs in each of the rules to the contesting opposite parties.

Sen, J.

4. I agree.


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