RAJ NATH Vs. VIJAY NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal from the order of a learned single Judge dated May 26, 1972, refusing to extend the time on the application of the appellant (I.A. I of 1972 dated January 3, 1972 which was made under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the court. The material facts so far as they are relevant for the decision of this appeal are as follows :-

(2.) The respondent filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm known as 'Premsukhdass Jawahar Lal' and rendition of accounts on August 20, 1969. On the game day an application (IA 1350 of 1969) was made by the respondent under order,40 Rule 1 and other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a receiver and other reliefs. This application was decided by B.C. Misra, J. on February 18, 1971. B.C. Misra, J appointed the official receiver as interim receiver of the partnership firm and ordered him to take into his possession all the movable and immovable properties of the firm subject to a number of conditions. We are concerned only with one of the conditions which is as follows :-

(3.) This part of the order relates to half portion of shop No. 4912 situated at Hauz Qazi, Delhi, which is in the possession of the appellant. The suit is still pending. This order is to remain effective till the decision of the suit. In terms of the order dated February 18, 1971 of B.C. Misra, J., the appellant furnished security of his immovable property situated in Kamla Nagar. Delhi. When the matter came up before the Registrar for the acceptance of the security, objections were raised by the respondent. The Registrar by his order dated April 23, 1971 rejected the security. Against this order of rejection of the security by the Registrar, an appeal was taken to the Judge in chambers and by order dated September, 21, 1971, Prakash Narain, J. held. firstly, that no appeal lay against the order of the Registrar and that, secondly, the immovable property of the joint Hindu family cannot be given in security. In the result the appeal was dismissed, it may be mentioned at this stage that the immovable property security of which was furnished by the appellant came to his share on a partition of the joint family property and, therefore, this immovable property belonged to the appellant and his two minor sons.