C M CHIKKANNA Vs. PARVATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that I. A. 5 filed by the plaintiff whereby the request made for appointment of a Receiver had been rejected by order dated 20-8-1998. But, in the order there was no such direction that defendant shall furnish accounts every fortnight. The defendant had come up in revision from that order itself before this Court and this Court vide order passed by Sri K. R. Prasada Rao, J. , dismissed the revision opining that revision was not maintainable and further observed that if any such directions are given by the Trial Court by any separate order, 1st defendant is entitled to challenge any such direction at that stage. Thereafter, it appears Court corrected the mistake and numbered the directions as, (1) Application rejected. (2) Defendant 1 shall file accounts every fortnight.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel contended that no application appears to have been made on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Court below was not justified in correcting the orders and putting another direction that the defendant 1 shall file accounts every fortnight.