Skip to content


Dinesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Tilak Raj and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.P. (M) No. 28 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1984HP8
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 40, Rule 1
AppellantDinesh Kumar and ors.
RespondentTilak Raj and ors.
Appellant Advocate Kultar Chand Rana, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases Referred and Collector of Gustoms. Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd.
Excerpt:
- orderh.s. thakur, j.1. the petitioners have filed this application for the removal of the receiver.2. the relevant, facts may be stated. a civil suit has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents for partirtioners and rendition of accounts in the court of the senior sub-judge, mandi. during the pendency of the suit, one shri amar chand was appointed as a receiver by the trial court. the appointment was challenged by the respondent. tilak raj, before the district judge but the order of the trial court was maintained. thereafter, the respondent filed a revision petition in this court. the high court by an order dt. 24th sept.. 1981, allowed the revision petition and appointed the respondent as a receiver on terms. the operative portion of the judgment in this behalf may be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

H.S. Thakur, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this application for the removal of the receiver.

2. The relevant, facts may be stated. A civil suit has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents for partirtioners and rendition of accounts in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi. During the pendency of the suit, one Shri Amar Chand was appointed as a receiver by the trial Court. The appointment was challenged by the respondent. Tilak Raj, before the District Judge but the order of the trial Court was maintained. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision petition in this Court. The High Court by an order dt. 24th Sept.. 1981, allowed the revision petition and appointed the respondent as a receiver on terms. The operative portion of the judgment in this behalf may be reproduced :

'Shri Tilak Rai receiver, shall keep a proper and accurate account of the 'business conducted by him shall submit all the details of -that account every month to the Senior Sub-Judge. Mandi. The respondents shall be entitled to look to the details of the account thus submitted by Shri Tilak Raj receiver to the Senior Sub-Judge. Both the parties shall also be entitled to approach the Senior Sub-Judge and to obtain suitable adjustments as regards the powers of the receiver and the right of the respondents to check the accounts.'

3. The petitioners preferred special leave petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court by an order dt. 3rd Sept. 1982 ordered the appointment of a co-receiver but observed that all other directions given by the High Court will remain.

4. It is asserted by the petitioners that the respondent has not complied with the directions of the court and has failed in submitting the accounts and has also committed other irregularities.

5. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that this Court has no Dower to entertain the application for the removal of the receiver as the order of this Court has ultimately merged into the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has referred to a decision in Gojer Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh (AIR 1974 SC 1380). In this judgment a reference has also been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Ramchandra v. Krishnaji' Dattatraya,(AIR 1970 SC 1) and Collector of Gustoms. Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. (AIR 1963 SC 1124).

6. The essence of the above decisions is that when an appeal or 'a revision is filed in a superior court, it is only the order of the superior court which is to be executed irrespective of the fact whether the superior court ' has dismissed modified, or reversed the same. On the strength of these decisions, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the order of this Court was modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is the Supreme Court alone that has got the jurisdiction to entertain such an application.

7. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the respondent was appointed as a receiver by this Court and the order of this Court was not reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court taut was only modified, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for the removal of the receiver.

8. Keeping in view the dictum of the Supreme Court. I cannot agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I am of the view that since the matter was ultimately decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application. The application is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs.


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