AMBER WOOLLEN MILLS Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated 10-2-1989 whereby in the execution application filed by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 11 C.P C., Receiver was appointed in respect of the properties of the judgment debtor at Delhi with the directions that the Receiver will attach those properties as per list and put all the properties or some of the said properties, sufficient to a satisfy the decree to sell after attachment through a public auction under law.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such order for appointment of Receiver could be passed by the Executing Court. The only course open to the decree-holder was to get the decree transferred under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, to the court at Delhi where the properties of the judgment-debtor are located and the judgment debtor is also actually and voluntarily residing or carries on business. According to the learned counsel such an application was made earlier by decree-bolder but was declined by the Executing Court vide its detailed order dated 23-10-1986 and that being so, no fresh order could be passed by the subsequent Executing Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find merit in this petition. Similar prayer was declined by the Execution Court vide its order dated 23-10-1986 with the observations that "it is mentioned in the application itself that the properties to be attached are, situated at Kathua in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as well as at Delhi. It was also admitted that the Judgment Debtor did not have any moveable property within the local jurisdiction of this Court. It was also admitted that the judgment debtor was not the resident of the local jurisdiction of this court. In this background, now it is to be appreciated as to whether the appointment of a Receiver for taking into possession the property that is outside the jurisdiction of this court can be just as well as convenient. In the considered opinion of this court, the answer is to be in the negative. Quite equally effective as well efficacious remedy are opened to the decree holder to be resorted by the Bank by having the decree transferred to the court having territorial jurisdiction or alternatively in getting the precept issue. When these specific provisions for the satisfaction of decree are there, it does not appear to be just to appoint Receiver for taking into possession the properties situated at far flung places from Pathankot and Delhi as well as at Kathua. The management of these properties would also be not convenient for the Receiver appointed from Pathankot."