SANTIMOY KUNDU CHOWDHURY Vs. SAMIR KUMAR KUNDU CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : GA 820 of 2019 is an application by surviving Joint Receiver for appointment of defendant no.33 as substitute Joint Receiver in place of since deceased Joint Receiver, defendant no.12. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant and presses for orders being made in the application. The prayers are for condonation of delay, appointment of defendant no.33 as Joint Receiver and consequential directions for Joint Receivers to thereafter open bank accounts and correspondingly close earlier bank accounts on transferring all monies to new accounts opened.

(2.) It appears from record in order dated 15th November, 2018 that some clarity was obtained regarding office of Joint Receivers in this suit. Decree dated 27th May, 1963 was passed on application made pursuant to notice dated 17th September, 1962, issued on behalf of defendants, Jiban Krishna Kundu Chowdhury and Gopendra Krishna Kundu Chowdhury. Shares of parties in properties described in Schedule B of the petition were declared by the decree and Joint Receivers were discharged in respect of those properties. Mr. Sinha had submitted that Joint Receivers continued in respect of rest of the properties. Then, one of the Joint Receivers, being defendant no.12, died and hence, this application for substitute Joint Receiver being appointed. He submits, the co- sharers have no objection to the appointment sought. He refers to the affidavit of service and demonstrates, learned advocates representing the co-sharers between them have duly been served.

(3.) Ms. Patra, learned advocate appears on behalf of plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and 15 and defenant nos.1 to 4, 6 to 16, 25 to 28, 30 to 32, 44, 47, 48, 51 to 61, 63 to 69 and 71 and submits, her clients have no objection to the appointment sought. Rest of co-sharer defendants being defendant nos.5, 29, 31, 45, 46, 49, 50 and plaintiff no.1 are represented by Mr. Debasish Ghosh, learned advocate, who, Mr. Sinha reiterates, had been served. Court accepts omission of Mr. Ghosh, acting on behalf of some co-sharers, to appear as acquiescence, on the part of un- represented co-sharers, to the appointment being made. As such Court presumes all co-sharers are on notice of this proceeding.