JETHA RAM Vs. LAKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the con mentement of arguments for admission Mr. J.R. Talia learned Counsel for the non petitioners raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition. According to him this is an order passed under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after to be referred as the Code), hence is an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1(s) of the Code.

(2.) IT has been strenuously argued by him that the impugned order is specific on the point that the learned Magistrate has given a finding that receiver should be appointed in the case and the order for attachment of the tractor is an order cot sequential to the order for appointment of receiver. It has been urged that merely because certain person was not nominated by that order it will rot amount an interlocutory order rather it denotes that a final order about the appointment of receiver hid been parsed and only the nomination of the the receiver was to be made after the property was atta bed. To substantiate his contention Mr Tatia has placed reliance on the following authorities : (1) (sic)Palantuppi Chatty v. (sic)PohnuppaChetty and Ors. 1918 Madras 1146. (2) Gobind Ram and Ors. v. Ganesh Ram and Ors. 1932 Patna 577. (3) The Firm Raghuoeer Singh Joswant of Quetta v. Narijan Singh and Ors. 1923 Lahore 48 (4) Narisingha Charon nandy Chowdhary v. Rojniti Prasad Singh and Ors. 1932 Patna 360. (5) Kiratsingh and Ors. v. Bhai Kalusingh and Ors. 1934 Lahore 129. (6) K P. Thampy v. Ram Kurup (sic)Naroyanm Kurup. 1956 Trav Cochin 264.

(3.) PLACING reliance on these authorities Mr. Tatia ernphaticaly argued that merely because some body was not named as receiver it can not be said that the impugned order was an interlocutory order so as to give a right to the aggrieved party to file the revision petition in this Court.