VANDANA MIMANI Vs. SUNIL JHAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope of the present revisional application is confined to grant of police help by the trial court apparently to implement an order of appointment of Receiver. It was alleged by the plaintiffs in the said suit, the scope of which pertains to a dispute relating to a partnership business between the main contesting parties, that the Receiver was being obstructed from complying with the order of the trial court whereby the Receiver was permitted to look into the accounts and to distribute the profits of the business among the partners. It was alleged by the plaintiffs in the court below that the suit premises had been kept under lock and key illegally, restricting the Receiver from entering the property to comply with the order of the court. On such allegations, the trial court, by the impugned order, inter alia, directed the O.C. Burrabazar Police Station to provide police help to the Receiver to inspect the premises-in-question thoroughly, authorising the Receiver to break open the padlock of the "business premises" in presence of the police personnel of the Burrabazar Police Station and also in presence of the parties and after inspection and taking stock of the materials and items etc. inside the said premises, the Receiver was further authorised to put all the entrances of the suit premises under his lock and key. The Receiver was also directed not to deliver any duplicate key or keys of the said premises to any of the parties to the suit till further order.

(2.) The present petitioners also allege that they are landlords in respect of the suit premises and, by virtue of the impugned order, the plaintiffs obtained a relief which is even beyond the scope of the suit. If the Receiver is permitted to take exclusive possession of the suit premises by virtue of the impugned order, that would hamper the rights of the petitioners as well as the tenants who have been subsequently inducted to the suit property according to the petitioners.

(3.) Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order granted rights to the Receiver as regards exclusive possession of the premises, which were much beyond the charter of the Receiver as per the order of his appointment.