GOALDAS SADANI Vs. CHAND JHAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order dated April 16, 1962, of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court at Alipore, in connection with a Receiver matter in a partition suit.

(2.) The petitioner instituted the instant suit for partition and accounts against the opposite parties 1 to 9 as Defendant Nos. 1 to 9. The properties in suit comprised premises Nos. 95 and 101, Alipore Road within the municipality of Calcutta and No. 2, Kings Road within the town of Howrah. Premises No. 95, Alipore Road consisted of a low tank-filled vacant land. Premises No. 101 comprised of two dilapidated buildings, one to the north of the other. The southern building was in the occupation of a tenant, paying Rs. 43 per month as rent. A portion of the northern building, which was in a dilapidated condition, was demolished by the Calcutta Corporation and the rest of it was in the wrongful occupation of some refugees. The Howrah property was entirely tenanted and fetched a rental of Rs. 500 per month. The plaintiff, that is to say the present petitioner, claimed two-third share in the suit properties, and on his prayer the Court appointed a Receiver of those properties.

(3.) On December 16, 1960, the Receiver applied to the Court for permission to lease out premises No. 95, Alipore Road and a portion of premises No. 101, Alipore Road, viz., the portion lying vacant after the demolition of the structures standing thereon on the ground that the existing income from those properties was very meager and quite insufficient to meet the dues of the Calcutta Corporation amounting to about Rs. 1,000. On December 19, 1960, the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 prayed for time to file objection to the Receiver's proposal. Time was granted till January 2, 1961, for that purpose. On that day the plaintiff filed his objection, but the Defendant No. 1 prayed for further time to file their objection. The petitions were ordered to be put up on January 5, 1961, which had already been fixed as the date for the hearing of the suit itself. On this latter date two orders were passed by the Court. By the first order the hearing of the suit was adjourned to January 19, 1961, on the prayer of the plaintiff. The second order, which is relevant for our present purpose, written statement in these terms: Defendant Nos. 4 to 9 file objection against the leasing out of the Alipore properties by the Receiver. The Defendant No. 1's petition for time is put up for orders. Defendant No. 1 to file objection against the Receiver's report. No costs of the petition. Heard the Receiver and the Defendant No. 1's lawyer. Defendant No. 1's lawyer has no objection to the lease proposed by the Receiver. Hence, the petition for time for filing objection is permitted to lease out the property on the terms as proposed.