PRAHLAD KUMAR Vs. AMAR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision of the order of the Court of Shri Gurdial Singh, Senior Subordinate Judge, Bhatinda (exercising enhanced appellate powers), dated May 5, 1976, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner against the order of the trial Court, dated Nov. 5, 1974, permitting respondent No. 4 to file a suit against respondent No. 3, the Receiver appointed by the Court under O. 40, R. 1 of the Civil P. C. during the pendency of the Civil Suit between the parties.

(2.) IN the suit for the dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts filed by the plaintiff-petitioner respondent No. 3 was appointed the Receiver of the partnership property. On August 9, 1974 respondent No. 4 made an application to the trial Court for directing the Receiver to hand over to her the possession of certain movie film with its negative etc. That application was dismissed by the trial Court. Another application was filed by respondent No. 4 in the trial Court on July 18, 1974, for granting her permission to sue the Receiver appointed by the Court by impleading the Receiver as a defendant in the suit she proposed to file against the firm and its partners before the Bombay High Court on its original side. That application was allowed by the order of the trial Court, dated Nov. 5, 1974. It is against the above-mentioned order of the trial Court granting permission to respondent No. 4 to sue the Receiver that the appeal had been filed by the plaintiff before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge which has been dismissed as being not maintainable.

(3.) MR . Harbhagwan Singh has relied on the judgment of Sodhi, j. (as he then was) in Raj Kumar v. General Public, 1971 Cur LJ 760. The question that came up for decision in that appeal was whether an appeal lay to this Court against the order of the District Judge refusing the enhanced compensation allowed to one of the heirs of the deceased for maintenance of her minor children during the course of pendency of a petition under S. 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased. The preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal was repelled by the learned Judge on the ground that every order passed by the Court under the Succession Act was appealable under S. 299 of that Act to the High Court, and inasmuch as the order passed by the trial Court was obviously under Clause (d) of R. 1 of O. 40 (direction to the Receiver), it was specifically appealable under O. 43, R. 1 (s) of the Code. The order passed in the instant case by the learned Subordinate Judge on Nov. 5, 1974, admittedly does not amount to a direction issued to the Receiver, and does not fall under Cl. (d) of R. 1 of O. 40. The judgment of Sodhi, J. is, therefore, of no avail to the petitioner.