SURJIT SACHDEV Vs. KAZAKHSTAN INVESTMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals are against a common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.5.1996 - 23.5.1996 deciming the plaintiff-appellant's prayer to pass judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to appoint a Receiver, as prayed under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'Code') with respect to the suit property.

(2.) The facts in brief are that in the suit instituted on 24.5.1995 a decree for ejectment/possession in respect of property No. S-54, Panchsheela Park, New Delhi along with a decree for recovery of Rs. 5,05,000.00 towards mesne profits and future mesne profits @ Rs. 1,50,000.00 p.m. or at such higher rate as may be prevalent in future and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. has been claimed by the plaintiff-appellant against defendant-respondents 1 & 2. It is also prayed that defendant No. 3 be also held liable for mesne profits and if necessary in respect of other reliefs as well. Along with the Suit IA 4639/95 was filed under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and Order 38 Rule I and Section 151 of the Code praying that a Receiver be appointed forthwith, who should take possession of the property in suit and hold the same till further orders, defendants 1 & 2 be restrained from using the property for any commercial purpose or by any one else other than defendant No. 2 and in case defendant No. 2 happens to come to India, he be restrained from leaving the country till possession has been handed back to the plaintiff-appellant and dues cleared.

(3.) After the defendants were served and written statement was filed/the suit and the application came up before Court on 29.2.1996, when a prayer was made by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that on the basis of an admission contained in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit property. This prayer was opposed by learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 stating that no admission has been made by defendant No. 1 in its written statement. It was also stated by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that since the written statement does not contain an admission for passing a decree for the remaining prayer for mesne profits, as such the plaintiff was not praying for a decree on admission for mesne profits at this stage. Direction was made by the learned Single Judge on that day to defendant No. 2, the Chairman of defendant No. 1, to remain present in Court on the adjourned date along with his passport, for verifying as to for whatperiod he stayed in India since the pendency of the suit. Case was adjourned to 10.5.1996, on which date the application of the plaintiff was disposed of. The Court declined to pass decree on admission for possession at this stage or to appoint a Receiver. The defendant-respondents were restrained from changing the user of the suit property from residential to commercial. It is this order, which is under challenge in this appeal.