MANICKAM Vs. NAMAGIRI THAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The above revision is filed against the order dated 21st July, made in E. A. No. 489 of 1998 in E. P. No. 32 of 1992 in O. S. No. 151 of 1977 by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The said application has been filed under Order 22, Rule 10 of C. P. C.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:- THE plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 151 of 1977 for recovery of sum of Rs. 37 ,000. When the suit was pending before the court, some creditor filed application in I. P. No. 19 of 1977 against the first respondent and the firm in which he was a partner. Pending I. P interim receiver was appointed. THE said appointment of receiver was challenged in the Civil revision Petition Nos. 1099 ,1100 and 1193 of 1977 by the partner as well as the partnership firm. Those three civil Revision Petition were disposed of on 17. 6. 1977 with a direction to the trial court to dispose of the I. P. at an early date without disturbing the appointment of receiver. Further the receiver so appointed was permitted to take possession of the private property of the partners also with a clear rider that private property of the partners should not be alienated.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that once the order in C. R. P. No. 534 of 1994 has become final. , the plea of the petitioner herein for implement of the second respondent Official Receiver is not available to him. He elaborated his argument to the effect that by the order in C. R. P. No. 534 of 1994, this Court has clearly stated that the pendenc y of the I. P. proceedings would not in any way preclude the decree holder the 1st respondent herein to proceed could be attached and brought to sale and the same has not vested in Receiver appointed in the insolvency proceedings, the 2nd respondent is not a necessary party.