M BALAMANI Vs. BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order passed in an interlocutory application, which has the effect, of granting to the plaintiff a decree. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a money suit based on security of documents, (1) a promissory note for Rs. 50,000/- and (2) a letter of continuity in respect of the said promissory note. Soon after the presentation of the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application seeking appointment of a Receiver to take charge of certain hypothecated machineries and paper, the machineries being a printing press.

(2.) THE defendants/appellants responded to the said application by denying the allegation and disputing the claim of the plaintiff. Later, they also filed their written statement and stated that the plaint averments were not correct and that the suit claim was not true.

(3.) THERE can hardly be any objection to a plaintiff in a suit, even in a money suit applying for security and in default, of security, for attachment before judgment, for injunction or a direction to maintain a status quo with respect to the subject matter of the dispute or to ensure that the defendants by some acts pendente lite do not defeat the suit claim or asking for a Receiver to take a charge of the subject matter of the dispute in a suit. It is open to a Court to make one or the other order depending upon the facts of the case and the requirements of the case. It has, however never been in doubt that the Court should not make any order pendente lite , which has the effect of granting to the plaintiff the relief prayed for in the suit.