SREPAT SINGH Vs. RAM SARAP SURYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals from two orders made in the course of insolvency proceedings by the District Judge or Murshidabad in the following circumstances:--The late Chatrapat Singh was adjudicated an insolvent by an order of the Privy Council, dated the 20 November 1916. On the 2nd August, 1917. the District Judge made an order appointing Babu Promatha Nath Chakraburty Receiver of the insolvent's estate Chatrapat died on the 15 April, 1018, and the appellants in these appeals are his sons Srepat Singh and Jagatpat Singh, the respondents being the Receiver whose name I have mentioned and certain creditors of the estate. On the 26 May 1910, the District Judge, on an application by the appellants to be made parties to the proceedings, held that they had no title or interest to come in as parties. That order was subsequently revered on appeal by the High Court by an order dated the 19 May 1920, and since then the names of the appellants have appeared as parties on the record. In view of the course which the argument before us has taken and of the order which we propose to make, it is not necessary on the present occasion to decide whether the right of the appellants to appear was limited to the particular purpose which the learned Judges had in view in making their order.

(2.) Meanwhile, on the 26 June 1919, the District Judge (Mr. Rau) made an order fixing the remuneration of the Receiver at Rs. 150 a month, and rightly directing that the remuneration should be paid out of the estate of the insolvent.

(3.) On the 27 August 1920, the appellants by a petition to the District Judge, complained that the Receiver's remuneration was excessive. The matter came before the District Judge on the 18 September, 1920, when he directed the Receiver to submit what he called a concise account of the work which he had already done. This concise account or statement was duly submitted by the Receiver and on the 8 October 1920. the District, Judge (then Mr. J.A. Ross) passed the order from which Appeal No. 378 has been preferred in these terms: "Examined the account of the work done by the Receiver. Heard objector's criticisms and Pleaders on both sides. I see no reason to interfere with the order of Mr. Rau as regards the remuneration of the Receiver up to the present. He will, however, in future keep a detailed diary of the work done by him and submit it monthly and be prepared at the time of submission to produce all connected papers. The rate of remuneration will be liable to he reconsidered as from fir October, 1920, on examination of the diaries submitted"