MAHADEO MAHTO Vs. HIRALAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application has been preferred against the order dated 28-6-1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 4th court, Hazaribagh. The back ground and the history of the case are necessary to be reiterated for considering the circumstances of the case,

(2.) The predecessor of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 Giani Ram instituted Partition Suit No. 9 of 1956, before the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh in which the petitioners were arrayed an defendants No. 15 to 18. The said suit was contested by the defendants by raising a plea that Giani Ram had no interest in the suit property. During the proceeding of the suit, opposite party No. 5 (Baikunth Nath De) was appointed as receiver but as he went to jail in some criminal cases, the plaintiff Giani Ram was appointed as receiver by the court's order. There receiver remained in possession of the entire properties as required and practically the court had managed the properties through the receiver Giani Ram. It is alleged that while possessing the suit property as receiver Giani Ram was cultivating the land, and was selling the produce thereof and the sale proceeds were also kept by him. A preliminary decree was passed in the petition suit and final decree was under preparation. During the course of proceeding for final decree, Giani Ram had filed an application that he had purchased the entire interest of the defendants and accordingly there was no need to prepare the final decree and the lands under the management of the receiver be released and the khas possession of the plaintiff be declared. On the basis of the petition, the Subordinate Judge passed final order on 7.7.1984 and declared the plaintiff Giani Ram to be the sole owner of the entire suit property. The petitioners filed civil revision being Civil Revision No. 289 of 1984 (R) in this Court and the order passed by the learned court below was stayed. During the pendency of that civil revision, Giani Ram filed an application that the partition suit filed by him may be permitted to be withdrawn and on the basis of that application this Court passed an order that the suit be allowed to be withdrawn by the lower court if he files a petition so. There was specific direction to the trial court that if such application is field then the trial court may dismiss the suit on withdrawal. But Giani Ram instead of filing an application for withdrawal of the suit, filed an application that he being the owner of the suit property, he may be permitted to withdraw the suit but such petition was not entertained and the suit was dismissed in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in C.R.No. 289 of 1984 (R) by order dated 10.3.1987. The plaintiff Giani Ram then filed F.A.No. 62 of 1987 (R) and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 of 1987 (R) against the orders of the learned trial court dismissing the suit but again he withdraw the said appeals and those appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the receivers appointed by the learned trial Court had not furnished any accounts and of the money of the sale proceeds of the paddy produce in the field lay with them and the same was never being . deposited in the Court. Accordingly, an application was filed under Order XL, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trail court for direction to the receivers to furnish accounts and also deposit in court the amount due from them, as according to the petitioners, they were entitled to a share of such sale proceeds. The said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1989 but after hearing both the parties, the same was rejected as not maintainable directing the petitioners that they may file a regular suit against the receivers if they feel so aggrieved. Against that order, the petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 618 of 1989 (R) and the said civil revision application was allowed vide order dated 18.3.1991 holding that the application was maintainable under Order XL, Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the receiver was responsible as per the terms of the above Rules for any loss occurred to the properties by his wilful default. There was also direction that the receiver should be directed to submit accounts and also the income derived from the property in course of his appointment as receiver. In pursuance of that order, the learned Sub-Judge passed on order on 18.2.1995 to file detailed accounts on and 12.5.1995, the receiver filed the accounts for the period 1976 to 1986 and sought for time to deposit the accounts for period 1959 to 1975 and on 18.8.1995 the court after hearing the parties passed a fresh direction to the respondents to furnish full detailed accounts for the year, 1982 and onwards and after that the matter remained pending to the court and no orders were passed. In the meanwhile, the opposite parties who happened to be the legal representatives of Giani Ram toyed the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of C.R.No. 618 of 1989 (R). That move before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed and the High Court's order was confirmed. While passing the order, the Supreme Court specifically mentioned in the following manner: Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The concluding portion of the order of the High Court envisages that an appropriate order would be passed by the Court after examining the accounts furnished by the receiver and entertaining claims of the parties to which they are legally entitled to.