NALINI KANT SINHA Vs. AJOY KRISHNA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is by the plaintiff against an order dated the 1st August, 1983, passed by the 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Arrah, rejecting the petition dated 22.10.1982 filed by the plaintiff -petitioner. There is a suit for partition between the party and a receiver has been appointed on 11.8.1980 and the receiver took charge of the property in September, 1980. It is the case of the plaintiff -petitioner that after the receiver took charge of the property, one Anugrahit Narayan forcibly possessed a part of the property without permission and/or sanction of the receiver sometime in the year 1981.

(2.) The plaintiff filed an application for removal of the said trespasser Anugrahit Narayan and the Court by its order dated 27.7.1981 empowered the receiver to remove the said Anugrahit Narayan (Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner). The said order, however, was stayed on 28.7.1981 as the defendants intimated the Court that they propose to go to the High Court again at the said order. No body moved the High Court and the order dated 27.7.1981 became final. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application for implementation of the order passed on 27.7.1981 in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From the impugned order it appears that the plaintiff prayed that immediate steps be taken to prosecute the defendants and/or their hired men Anugrahit Narayan and Babban Yadav for criminal trespass and to take lawful occupation of the property in custody of the receiver. The Court below by the impugned order refused to implement the earlier order observing:

(3.) When the matter was put up before me for the first time, I called for a report on 14.5.1984 from the Advocate receiver as to whether Anugrahit Narayan came over the property with his consent and permission. The receiver was further asked to submit a report as to whether when he took charge of the property in question as a receiver, Anugrahit Narayan was living in the house either, as a tenant or as a manager. The receiver was further directed that if he liked to add anything about Anugrahit Narayan, he might do so.