PREMJI HURJI AND CO Vs. PREMJI PANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a motion for the appointment of a receiver in a commercial cause. Mr. Setalvad has raised a preliminary objection that the application cannot be entertained on a notice of motion as in the case of an ordinary long cause. The point covered by the objection has not been decided in any reported decision of this Court. My attention, however, has been drawn to three suits on the record of this Court. The first is a suit No. 1133 of 1929, in which Mr. Justice Sir Norman Kemp entertained an application for the appoint meat of a receiver under the summons for directions taken out in the suit. As to this it is pointed out that there was a prayer for the appointment of a receiver in the original summons for directions. The next suit is Suit No. 2187 of 1930, in which Mr. Justice Blackwell held that an application for the appointment of a receiver must be made in the ordinary way in the Court on a notice of motion and not under a summons for directions. But the same learned Judge laid down a somewhat different rule in Suit No. 8 of 1931, and entertained an application for the appointment of a receiver under a notice taken out under the summons for directions in that case. In the summons for directions one of the directions sought was as regards the appointment of a receiver. I am not disposed to attach much weight to the argument that in two of these decisions the summons for directions included a direction for the appointment of a receiver. In my opinion, on principle, there is no difference between the case in which the summons for directions includes a direction for the appointment of a receiver and the case in which no such direction is mentioned in the summons for directions, because if it is open to a party to apply for the appointment of a receiver under the summons for directions, he may do so by the summons itself or under the rules by a notice under the summons. The whole question is, Is it open to a party to apply for the appointment of a receiver under the summons for directions? I shall first consider our rules contained in Chapter XII of the Rules of the High Court, 1930. Rule 199 says that on the plaint being accepted the plaintiff shall take out a summons for directions which has to be served on other parties and made returnable within not less than four days. The summons has to be in Form No. 22, Rule 200 runs as follows :- 200. At the hearing of the summons for directions the Judge may make such order as he thinks fit for the speedy determination of the suit, the avoidance of multiplicity of interlocutory proceedings and the avoidance of expense and delay which might arise from commissions to take evidence or otherwise....

(2.) Then certain particular matters in regard to which directions may be given by the Judge are set out. These, it may be stated, are generally similar in nature to any are of the same kind as the matters mentioned in Form No. 22. Then Rule 201 states that no affidavit shall be made or used on the hearing of the summons except by the special order of the Judge. Then the next material rule is Rule 202 which runs as follows:- 202. Any application subsequent to the original summons for any directions as to any matter by any party shall be made under the summons on two clear days notice to the other party, stating the grounds of the application. If the Judge is of opinion that such application could properly have been made on the original summons, he may direct that the party applying shall in any event pay the costs of such application.

(3.) Taking Rules 199 and 202 together. I think that the directions which can be sought under a notice in accordance with the latter rule must be of the same kind and nature as in the former. The jurisdiction under Rule 202 is the same in all respects as that which can be exercised on a summons for directions. Beading Rule 199 and the Form No. 22, in my opinion, the dominant idea seems to be that such directions should be given as are necessary for (1) speedy determination of the suit, (2) avoidance of multiplicity of interlocutory applications of the nature mentioned in the rule and the Form No. 22, and (3) avoidance of expense and delay consequent upon applications for commissions or otherwise. The governing idea of these rules is speedy determination of the suit. On the construction of the rules, therefore. I have come to the conclusion that applications for injunctions and for appointment of receivers are outside the scope of the summons for directions or of the notice under Rule 202.