MANBHARI BAI Vs. SAT NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judgc accepting the application of the respondents for bein substituted in place of the Officiai Recciver who was the oniy appellant in R.F.A. 131-D of 1966.

(2.) Sometimes in February, 1963 the respondents, Sat Narain, Savitri Devi and Ram Kumar, moved an application under sections 9(1) and 13(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act before the Insolvency Court praying "that onc Bura Mal be declared an insolvent and a Receiver of his estate be appointed. In this petition, the Insolvency Court appointed Officiai Receiver as the Interim Receiver of the estate of Bura Mal. In April, 1966 one Ram Murti Devi, wife of a son of the brother of Bura Mal filed a suit for partition in respect of the propertics comprised in .the estate of Bura Mal against Manbhari Bai, widow of a real brother of Bura Mal, and Bura Mal. The Officiai Receiver was aiso impleaded as a defendant in this suit. Ram Murti Devi alleged that she owned the properties along with Manbhari Bai and Bura Mal. The Officiai Recciver contested the suit and took the plea, amongst others, that it was collusive. On April 5, 1966, however, the learned trial court decreed the suit. Against this decree, the Officiai Receiver filed an appeal to this Court (being RFA 131-D of 3966) after obtaining permission of the Insolvency Judge. Thereafter, it appears that the learned District Judge on appeal set aside the order of the Insolvency Court appointing the Officiai Receiver as the Interim Receiver of the estate of Bura Mal. The respondents thereupon applied under Order l ruie 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as appellants in place of the Officiai Receiver with the allegations that they had subsisting interest in the subject-matter of the appeal as it was on their application that the Insolvency Court had appointed Officiai Recciver as the interim Receiver of the estate of Bura Mal and after the vacation of the order appointing Interim Receiver they were entitled to be substituted in place of the Officiai Receiver. The leamed single Judge by the impugned order accepted this application and held that the respondents were entitled to prosecute the appeal and directed them to be substituted in place of the Officiai Receiver. As one of the respondents to the appeal, Ram Murti Devi, had in the meantime died, the substituted appellants were aiso directed to move an application for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.

(3.) The respondents have raised a preliminary objection that this appeal is not competent under clause 10 of the Letters Patent as this clause provides for appeals from a "judgment" and the order under appeal is not a "judgment". The submission, in our view, has substance.