CHERIYAN Vs. KRISTHU RAJA JANASAHAYAM SANGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. M. A. No. 171 of 1975 arises out of I. A. No. 875 of 1974 in O. S. No. 147 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Court of Parur and C.M. A. No. 173 of 1975 arises out of I. A. No. 1148 of 1975 in O. S. No. 148 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Court, Parur, both suits between the same parties. The appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit and 1st counter petitioner in the petitions. The suits were for recovery of amounts secured by hypothecation bonds. In each these suits two petitions were filed; one for attachment, before judgment, of five items of properties not included in the hypothecation bond, and therefore not included in the Schedule of properties to the plaint, they being not subject matter of the suit; and the other for appointment of a receiver for managing the properties described in the schedule to the plaint as well as the properties sought to be attached before judgment.

(2.) After the coming into force of Act XXX of 1975, the appellant seems to have filed a petition in each of the suits for staying the proceedings. The court below while staying the suits, passed also the impugned orders appointing a receiver for the management of the properties attached before judgment, and also for the said properties. Shri. M. K. Narayana Menon, Counsel for the appellant, submits that the court below has fallen in error in making a distinction between suit proper on the one hand, and proceedings therein on the other for the purpose of stay. S.3 of Act XXX of 1975 provides inter alia:

(3.) Shri. Kalathil Velayudhan Nair, Counsel for the respondents submitted that even if the suits are stayed that does not mean that the power of the court to make appropriate directions in regard to the management of the properties is thereby taken away. In support of his argument, he cited the decisions in Eapen v. Abraham ( 1957 KLT 1244 ) and Senaji v. Pannaji (AIR 1922 Bombay 276). We are afraid, these two decisions cannot support the respondents. In the first case i.e. Eapen v. Abraham (1957 KLT 1244), what came up for consideration was the provisions of the Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957. S.4 therein provided as follows: