KASI VISWESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE Vs. SUBBA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two C RP.s. arise against two different orders refusing to reopen the I.A.s. which were ordered. Since the substance of the orderS is the same, the two C.R. Ps. are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts are that the petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed thE suits against two tenants for recovery of certain amounts alleged to be due as arrears of rent payable by them. Pending the suits, they filed applications under Order 40, Rule 1 CPC for appointment of a Receiver. In those applications the trial Court passed an order directingthe tenants to furnish security. Accordingly third party immoveable property security was offered aad accepted. Since they are unregistered bonds and now this Court has laid down in Pura Pentaiah vs.Madam Pandya that they are compulsorily Registerable they are now seeking to reopen and to got thoss bonds registered. Those applications were dismissed by the Lower Court holding that the applications do not lie. Section 94 (a) provides the power of the court with regard to supplemental proceedings. It postulates that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may if it is so prescribed make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the court to be just and convenient. Section 151 C.P.C. also inheres in the Court the power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In these cases in view of the law laid down by this Court that the security bonds are computsorily registerable and also in view of the fact that in the event of their succeeding in the suits obstacles may be placed in their way for their enforcement, they are seeking the matter to be reopened so that the bonds already filed can be got registered. To mest such eventualities and to prevent the ends of justice being defeated it is expedient that the powers of the Court under secs. 94 (e)and Sec. 151 C.P.C. are called upon the exercise and the lower Court ought to have exercised the same. As it failed to exercise it warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the two C.R. Ps. are allowed the orders of the lower court are set aside and the lower court is directed to reopen the matter and dispose of the same according to law. It is open to the respondents to file such bonds as are permissible under law. In the circumstances there will be no order as to the costs.