NEMAI PALIT & ANOTHER. Vs. BIMAL CHANDRA MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the Judgment-Debtors/Appellants have brought to the notice of this Court that the Receiver, who was appointed in a Partition Suit filed the present suit in question acting as such. He did not bring to the notice of this Court that the property was owned by or devolved upon Sm. Pritikana Mitra, who happened to be his wife. He suppressed this material fact from this Court. After the ownership devolved in favour of Sm. Pritikana Mitra, he did not take any steps to bring the said fact to the notice of this Court. There was no purpose in his acting as the Receiver. The owner should have been brought on record. We do not appreciate this action of the Receiver, who is now dead.

(2.) It was also the duty of the learned Counsel representing the Receiver to disclose all the facts before the Court, which has not been done from the very beginning.

(3.) The appellants have filed an application relying upon a document which shows that Sm. Pritikana Mitra is the owner of the premises in question. They submit that the Receiver should not have acted after the property devolved upon her.