SHRINIWAS KUPPUSWAMI MUDLIAR Vs. MCWAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opponent, appellant in this case, was appointed Receiver in Suit No. 137 of 1913 which was a partnership suit. He applied for leave to pass his accounts and receive his remuneration. On the 26th October 1917, the plaintiff s pleader in that suit raised objections that the Receiver had not done his work properly; that owing to the Receiver s conduct the defendant had misappropriated the goods to a great extent; that if the Receiver had done his duty carefully and punctually, and had properly made inventories of the goods, the goods could not have been misappropriated; that from the beginning the Receiver had been grossly negligent, and had also helped the defendant ; and that under the circumstances he was not entitled to his fees for his services as Receiver, on the contrary he was liable for plaintiff s loss.

(2.) The record shows that, on the 22nd December 1917, the Subordinate Judge passed the following order:-"The accounts submitted by the Receiver from time to time examined 1 find everything correct and regular. I see no reason whatever to doubt the bona fides of the same. Hence I order that the amount claimed by the Receiver for his fees and the expenses incurred by him be paid over to him out of the balance in the hands of the Nazir."

(3.) I think it must be taken that the learned Subordinate Judge considered the objection raised by the plaintiff to the Receiver passing his accounts, and it was open to him under Order XL, Rule 4 to find that the Receiver had occasioned loss to the property by his wilful default or gross negligence, and if he had found that the Receiver had been guilty, he could have directed the Receiver s property to be attached and sold and the proceeds applied to make good the loss.