HEMENDRA NATH ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. PROKASH CHANDRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of certain orders which were passed by the Subordinate Judge, 3 Court, 24 Pargannas in four Rent execution cases. By these orders the Subordinate Judge purported to appoint a receiver in respect of a defaulting tenure, a patni mahal, for realization of the decrees for rent which the landlords had obtained against the tenure holders. The decretal amounts of these four decrees, together with those of two other decrees which the landlords have also obtained in respect of the same tenure are said to come up to an aggregate of about a lakh of rupees. It is said that there is also another rent suit in respect of the same tenure pending between the parties for a claim of over a lakh of rupees. In these circumstances when dates had already been fixed in two out of the four execution cases for sale of the defaulting tenure--attachment and sale proclamation having been simultaneously issued, and applications for execution had been filed in the other two the decree-holders applied for realization of the decree by the appointment of a receiver. It may also be mentioned that in, the suit for rent that is pending as mentioned above, an application was also-made for the appointment of a , receiver. From the orders so made in the execution cases some of the judgment-debtors have preferred this appeal.

(2.) It is not necessary to set out in detail the procedure that was adopted by the Subordinate Judge in the matter of the appointment. As far as may be gathered from the papers before us, the complaint made by the appellants is not unfounded that the order of appointment was made before the appellant had a proper opportunity of putting forward their objections to such appointment or of being heard in support of their objections. It will serve-no useful purpose to go further into this complaint because the appellants objections were in fact considered by the Subordinate Judge at a subsequent stage, and the grievances that they had on that head must therefore be taken to have boon removed.

(3.) There are four Rules for ad interim stay in connexion with these appeals. They came up before us for hearing on 22 December, 1930, when one of us for personal reasons was unwilling to deal with, them. Under the orders of the Hon ble Chief Justice they were then put up before another Division Bench for hearing. On 7 January 1931 that Division Bench ordered the Rules to be hoard along with the appeals when they would be ready. The appeals are now ready except as to service of the notice on one of the judgment-debtors respondents, but it is con-coded that his presence now is not very necessary. There is considerable urgency in the matter as all proceedings have been kept in abeyance and all the parties who have appeared in these cases have expressed their desire before us that we should deal with the cases here and now as it would not be convenient for any other Bench to take them up in the near future.. We have accordingly heard these cases.