SUBRAMANIA ODEAR Vs. GOVINDAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE A. A. O. No. 270 of 1983 is against the fair order and decretal order in I. A. No. 966 of 1983, A. A. O. No. 271 of 1983 is against the fair order and decretal order in I. A. No. 3211 of 1982 in O. S. No. 415 of 1982on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry .

(2.) ON 12. 12. 1992 when the appeals came on list there was no representation by respondents. So arguments of the appellants' ' counsel alone were heard. ON the next hearing date, the appeal was adjourned at the request of counsel for respondents. Next time both sides wanted adjournment. ON 22. 1. 1993 there was no representation for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents represented that the first respondent govindam-mal had ceased to have any interest in the case and so the counsel would contact the client and report. However, during the subsequent hearing on 29. 1. 1993 there was no representation by both sides. ON 3. 2. 1993 one more adjournment was granted at the instance of learned counsel for respondents. ON 12. 2. 1993 there was no representation by respondents. Appellants' ' counsel alone was present. So the appeal was posted for passing of orders on 19. 2. 1993. ON that day both sides were absent. So judgment was reserved.

(3.) THE report of the Commissioner further states that in the south eastern corner there is a room like structure with old foundation. THEre is a new extension and the fence around the suit property is not in good condition. In the second item ' ' B' ' schedule some of the bath room tiles have been removed. In the kitchen the roof has fallen down in a corner. THE house was not whitewashed for the past four years. THE compound wall is not in good condition. Some wooden pillars arestanding in the veranda without any support to the building. His report nowhere states that there was any evidence relating to removal of windows, doors and other fixtures from the building. THE Commissioner instead of reporting what he has observed, has chosen to record what he learnt on enquiry. This is beyond the scope of the commission warrant issued to him. So we find that the Commissioner' ' s report does not support the claim of the 1st respondent for the appointment of a receiver.