VIJAI KUMAR SINGH Vs. BENARAS STATE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS F. A. F. O. is directed against an order of the court below dt. 5-9-79 directing the receiver to furnish a complete and proper account and to deposit a sum of money in Court. By this order, the property movable and immovable of the respondent (appellant ?) has also been directed to be attached until final settlement of the account.

(2.) IT appears from the facts of the case that a dispute about the cold storage was pending in the Court below and the plaintiff had filed the suit for the recovery of a larger sum of money for realisation of which a receiver was sought to be appointed to run the cold storage and to pay off the money due to the plaintiff. A receiver was appointed earlier on 8-8-78 but since he could not properly manage it he was removed and the appellant was appointed as receiver by an order dated 8-2-79. Both the parties were dissatisfied with the working of the receiver and they filed detailed objections in that regard. The Court, while considering those objections, came to the conclusion that the account furnished by the receiver was not free from blemish and it was necessary that he should be directed to furnish a complete and proper account and to explain about the disposal of the old material etc. belonging to the cold storage. In view of this, the impugned order was passed.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties I find that the objection is well taken. Sri G. P. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has urged that in the Order the Court had already formed an opinion and has indicated that the particulars in the matter have been wrongly shown in the accounts book. This, however, does not appear to be so. To me it appears that the court was only prima facie trying to judge the merits of the objections raised by both the parties against the receiver and in that connection the court has indicated that these are some of the matters which, prima facie, appear to be wrong. It is for this reason that an opportunity had been given to the receiver to furnish a complete and proper account. When the receiver replies to the objections raised by the parties and is then able to satisfy the Court that the accounts maintained by him were proper and that nothing wrong had been done by him, I see no reason why the Court will not consider the explanation given by the receiver before passing any final Order.