Skip to content


Sm. Radharani Dassya and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Sarkar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Cal737
AppellantSm. Radharani Dassya and ors.
RespondentPurna Chandra Sarkar and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....be given that the case may be taken to his majesty in council on the ground that, whereas, if a suit is brought against a receiver before an order for discharge is passed, the receiver is a public officer and notice is required if the suit is brought challenging his acts in the course of his public duties; nevertheless, if the plaintiff only waits and brings his suit after the order of discharge is made, the protection intended to be given to the receiver by section 80, civil p.c., is no longer given. in my opinion, that is not a reasonable construction of the section read with the definition of 'public officer' in section 2 of the code. for this reason alone, it appears to me that the point of law now taken is not substantial.2. there is however a further point. it appears that,.....
Judgment:

Rankin, C.J.

1. This is an application for a certificate that the case is a fit one to be taken on appeal to His Majesty in Council. The defendant is sued for negligence and for improper intromission with property in the course of his duties as receiver in a certain suit. The position is that an order has been passed for the discharge of the receiver in that suit. He has filed certain accounts; but these accounts have not yet been passed. The present plaintiffs applied in that suit for relief of the kind which they now seek. It was held against them that such relief could be more properly got by instituting a separate suit. We are in no way concerned with the correctness of that decision. A separate suit was brought, but no notice under Section 80, Civil P.C., was given to the defendant. For this reason, the suit has been dismissed in all the Courts. It is now contended before us that a certificate should be given that the case may be taken to His Majesty in Council on the ground that, whereas, if a suit is brought against a receiver before an order for discharge is passed, the receiver is a public officer and notice is required if the suit is brought challenging his acts in the course of his public duties; nevertheless, if the plaintiff only waits and brings his suit after the order of discharge is made, the protection intended to be given to the receiver by Section 80, Civil P.C., is no longer given. In my opinion, that is not a reasonable construction of the section read with the definition of 'public officer' in Section 2 of the Code. For this reason alone, it appears to me that the point of law now taken is not substantial.

2. There is however a further point. It appears that, after certain scrutiny had been made of these accounts, a large sum was found by the Head Clerk to be due to the plaintiff on the receiver's account, but the plaintiff still brought this suit valuing his claim to the relief at Rs. 2,500; at no stage up to the present has he increased that valuation or paid any more court-fee. In my judgment, the attempt now made to say that the suit should be treated as involving over Rs. 10,000, is one that cannot be maintained.

3. For these reasons, it appears to me that this application should be dismissed with costs, hearing-fee five gold mohurs.

C.C. Ghose, J.

3. I agree.


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