VIRAPPA MALLAPPA LALI Vs. K SDESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of two applications presented by the petitioner under Rule 4 of Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure in which he wanted an order for the recovery from the Receiver of the amount found to be due from him in respect of the loss occasioned by him. The Court of first instance refused to make such order. The petitioner then presented two appeals to the District Judge under the provisions of Rule 1 (s) of Order" XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge dismissed those appeals since in his opinion they were incompetent. It is with the correctness of this conclusion reached by the District Judge that I am concerned in these two revision petitions.

(2.) The relief which the petitioner wanted is stated in paragraph 10 of his application in each of these cases and that paragraph reads:

(3.) Although in this paragraph the application of the petitioner specified Rule 3 of Order 40 as the rule under which he wanted the Court to make the order sought by him, it is clear that the rule stated by him was a mis-statement for Rule 4, since Rule 3 only enumerates the duties of a Receiver and it is Rule 4 under which the Court could determine the liability of the Receiver in respect of the loss occasioned by him to the estate which was entrusted to him for management.