BAGSVIG Vs. CORON INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 1027/94 and is a registered firm. As per the impugned order, in the absence of any counter to the application filed by the decree holder seeking appointment of a Receiver, the Court directed appointment of Receiver and also gave direction to the Receiver to take possession of the firm's assets subject to filing of monthly accounts.

(2.) At the time of filing the revision itself maintainability of the revision was doubted and ultimately after hearing the petitioner, it was directed to be numbered provisionally on condition that the maintainability would be heard after notice to the respondents.

(3.) During hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision is maintainable, as the impugned order is not one passed under O.40 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and as it has to be deemed as one passed under O.21 R.49 of the CPC. It was further argued that in the case of decree against a firm there is no provision for appointment of a Receiver; that in such cases the remedy of the decree holder is only to proceed to sell the property of the partnership and that the appointment of Receiver is not one of the modes of execution allowed under O.21 R.50 of the C.P.C.