GOGO RANI Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 1 has filed this application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code alleging that the plaintiff on application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code obtained ex-parte injunction against defendant No. 1. On application for vacation of the ex- parte injunction being filed by defendant No. 1, the order was modified and Shri Rajiv Awasthi, Advocate was appointed as receiver to take over the possession of the premises and the machinery. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed FAO (OS). No. 189/95 against the order of appointment of Shri Awasthi as receiver and the same was disposed of by the Division Bench by an order dated November 9, 1995. It is alleged that despite the order passed by the Division Bench, the plaintiff has neither paid the profit to defendant No.1 of his share nor has she discharged the liability of the Bank. It was prayed that in place of the plaintiff, defendant No .1 may be appointed as a court receiver.

(2.) In the reply plaintiff has not denied the passing of an ex-parte injunction order on the application filed by her under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, modification of that order thereby appointing Shri Rajiv Awasthi as receiver, filing of FAO (OS) No.189/95 by the plaintiff and disposal of the appeal by the Division Bench vide order dated November 9, 1995,as alleged by defendant No.1. However, it is stated that the original account books which were produced by the plaintiff before the Division Bench, have not been returned to her till date despite her having approached Registry on a number of times.. Monthly statements of account, therefore, could not be filed by her. She has kept kacha accounts and will be completing the accounts after original account books are returned to her . It is alleged that there is no order for payment of the amount of profit to defendant No.1 or to discharge the liability of the Bank by her. Defendant No.1 has no experience for running the business of printing press and he cannot be appointed as receiver in her place, as claimed.

(3.) Case was fixed for arguments on October 27, 1997 but on that date nobody appeared for the plaintiff. I have heard Shri R.K.Kapoor appearing for defendant No.1 and have been taken through the record by him.