JEEVAN DAS Vs. ANIL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXX, Rule I read with Section 151, CPC. It has been prayed that a Receiver of the business may be appointed. The allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiff till 1993 was participating in the business of selling of flowers at the Human Mandir, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi, along with the defendants. However, thereafter he has not been permitted to participate in this business and has also not been given his share of the profits. A specific grievance has been made that the defendants have not complied with the orders of the "Court whereby they were directed to file statements of accounts of this business. It is in these facts that the plaintiff has alleged that he is suffering irreparable loss and injury if the Receiver of the business is not appointed.

(2.) In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the plaintiff had stressed that a perusal of the accounts would disclose that the defendants have claimed that a meagre sum of Rs.2,000.00 has been earned as profits. He has further submitted that the plaintiff is willing to participate in an auction inter se the parties and/or to give a written bid for the business. Without considering the plaintiff to be limited or restricted by his statement, learned Counsel had submitted that he would be prepared to underwrite double the amount mentioned by the defendants. Learned Counsel for the defendants has strenuously resisted the application. He has pointed out that the plaint fails to disclose the right of the plaintiff in the business. Relying on an averment in the plaint to the effect that the profits earned by the defendants' were Rs. 1 lac per month he had stated that, without prejudice to the defendants contention that the plaintiff has no right to share in this business, they would be quite prepared to hand over this business if they receive Rs. I lac per month or even half thereof, i.e. Rs. 50,000.00 per month.

(3.) In the threshold hearing of the case, on 8.12.1997 the following order was passed: