ANIL SHARMA Vs. RAJAN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application was filed by the respondent No. 1 for appointment of a receiver under Order 40 of the C. P. C. This application was allowed by an order dated 26-4-2008. The Civil Judge, while allowing the application, directed the parties to submit two names for the purpose of appointing a receiver. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed a revision under Section 115 of the C. P. C. The said revision was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) HEARD Sri Shashi Nandan, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri D. K. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel submitted that at the present moment, a receiver has not been appointed and only an application of the opposite party was allowed. Consequently, till such time, as a receiver was not appointed, no appeal under Section 43 Rule l (s) of the C. P. C. could be filed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Babu verma v. Om Prakash Verma and others, AIR 1986 Allahabad 355, wherein it was held that till such time as an order, appointing a particular person, as a receiver was not made by a court, no appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (s)was maintainable. The Court held that against an order recording a finding that it was just and convenient to appoint a receiver and creating an office of a receiver was not sufficient for filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (s)of the C. P. C.