DHIRENDRA NATH DAS Vs. MENOKA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order No. 100 dated 17th April, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Divsion, Durgapur in Title Suit No. 61 of 1995. Facts:

(2.) The plaintiff, in a suit for partition, is the appellant before this Court. The case has a chequered career. An application for appointment of Receiver filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned trial Court by an order dated 23rd May, 1996. One learned advocate was appointed Receiver by an order dated 20th June, 1996. The learned advocate had signified his unwillingness on 31st July, 1996. The sole defendant was appointed Receiver by an order dated 7th August 1996. Against the order dated 23rd May 1996 and 20th June 1996, the sole defendant preferred FMAT No. 2189 of 1996. This appeal was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 10th September 1996. In the said order, the Receiver was directed to deposit 50% of the collection in Court every month and to file quarterly statement of account. The trial Court by an order dated 7th February 1997 directed the Receiver to deposit 50% of the total collection in Court, in default the Receiver would be removed and one of the plaintiffs would be appointed Receiver. It appears from the record that the Receiver did not deposit the 50% of the collection made by him. The defendants preferred FMAT No. 1241 of 1997 against the order dated 7th February 1997. In FMAT No. 1241 of 1997, this Court by an order dated 18th September 1997 issued certain directions to the Receiver, which are quoted below:-

(3.) It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the claims and/or accounts made by the parties, which shall be dealt with by the trial Court while deciding the said application if filed.?