SUBH NARAIN SINGH Vs. M M CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge Chapra, dated the 27th January, 1968, whereby he recalled his previous orders dated the 20th and the 22nd January 1968.

(2.) The appellants filed a suit for the partition of the joint family properties some time in 1963. By an order of the Court passed on the 29th September 1966, on the joint application of the appellants and respondent No. 6, an amendment of the plaint was allowed and a car bearing registration number WBF 8223 was also included in the list of properties sought to be partitioned. On the 29th January 1963 another application was filed by appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 6 to the effect that the registration number of the car had been changed to BRD 1965 and, as the relationship between the parties to the suit had been deteriorating on account of the said car, it was prayed that a receiver be appointed in respect of the said car. The Court, after hearing the parties, by its order dated the 20th January 1968, appointed Shri Brrjkishore Singh, advocate as receiver in respect of the said car. As the car was in the custody of the officer in charge of Chapra Town police station, the receiver applied on the 22nd January 1968 for a true copy of the order of the Court appointing him as receiver, which was granted to him. On the 24th January 1968, an application was filed by firm Ganesh Narain Brijlal (Private) Limited (respondent No. 3), stating therein that the said car was ordered by the Calcutta High Court to be placed in charge of the receiver appointed by that Court on the 11th January 1968 and praying that the receiver appointed by the Court below be directed to produce the said car in the Court below. It was also stated therein that the officer in charge of Chapra Town police station was in possession of the said car on the 20th January 1968 for and on behalf of the receiver appointed by the Calcutta High Court and, finally, it was prayed that the appointment of Shri Brijkishore Singh as receiver be cancelled. Another petition was filed by Shri Ajoy Kumar Choudhuri to the effect that Shri M. M. Chakravarti (respondent No. 1), the official receiver of the Calcutta High Court, had already been appointed recaiver of the car in Commercial Cause Suit No. 2800 of 1967 and that the petitioner had been sent by the official receiver to take possession of the aforesaid car on his behalf. It was also stated therein that the Subdivisional Officer, Sadr, Chapra, directed the local police to take possession of the aforesaid car at the request of the petitioner and, as such, the police seized the car on the 17th January 1968 and was in possession of the same on behalf of the receiver appointed by the Calcutta High Court. The petition filed by appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 6 did not disclose that a receiver had already been appointed by the Calcutta High Court. Another petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Pro - cedure was filed by respondent No. 3 for being added as a party to the suit.

(3.) The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has recalled his previous orders on the ground that the appointment of respondent No. 1 as receiver in respect of the car was within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and was not open to challenge in view of Section 2 of the Decrees and Orders Validating Act, 1936. He has also come to the conclusion that the order appointing Shri Brijkishore Singh as receiver was passed on the 20th January 1968 in ignorance of the fact that a receiver had already been appointed by the Calcutta High Court and the car was in custody of the Calcutta High Court on the 20th January 1968, and, therefore, the said order dated the 20th January 1968 was fit to be recalled.