PRITHVI RAJ SARIN Vs. RAMESH KUMAR SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(s) Civil Procedure Code assails the interlocutory order dated 25-1-2010 passed in Case No. 130-A/2009 (Old No. 7-A/1978) by IV Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, whereby an application preferred by the plaintiff/ Misc. appellant for appointment of an independent Receiver in the backdrop of the objection to the working of erstwhile Receiver Late Harbans Lal Sachdeva (defendant No. 1) and further expressing apprehension that in case son of late Harbans Lal Sachdeva (defendant No. 1) is appointed as Receiver then the property in dispute will be put to misuse, has been disposed of by appointing Ramesh Kumar Sachdeva (defendant No. 2) son of late Harbans Lal Sachdeva (defendant No. 1) as Receiver.

(2.) The primary ground of challenge to the above said interlocutory order is that once the opposite party alleges misconduct on the part of the erstwhile deceased Receiver, the name of son of erstwhile Receiver ought not to have been accepted for appointment of Receiver.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand has defended the impugned order stating that the Court below has rightly appointed Ramesh Kumar Sachdeva as new Receiver as the appellant had failed to prove any case of misconduct against the defendant No. 2 and therefore, no prejudice could be caused to either parties to the litigation by the said appointment. LEARNED counsel for respondents further states that the order of Apex Court did not deal with the case on merits and therefore, the question of violation of directions of Apex Court by the Courts below does not arise.