RAMESWARI CHAUDHURANI Vs. KBDUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri which was made on the 26th of April 1915, where by he gave leave to the Receiver, Mr. Dutt, to settle a claim of the estate against a man named Mr. Manuk for Rs. 15,800. A letter was sent to the Receiver on the 1st of May by the executors saying that they were going to appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri, and asking the Receiver not to take any steps in respect of that order until the appeal was heard. We were at first told that there was no answer to this letter, which was a mistake for it appeared that an answer had been sent on the following day, the 2nd of May. A part of the answer has been read out to us by Mr. Chuckerbutty, and it was obviously to the effect that the Receiver could not be bound by the terms of the letter and that if the executors wanted to stay the proceedings they must take the necessary steps by applying to the Court. The Receiver also gave notice in that letter that he intended to carry out the order of the Court. It appears that on the 10th of June the Receiver did effect a settlement with Mr. Manuk--the property was reconveyed to him on that date, the release was signed, and, we are informed, the release was registered on the same date. On the 23rd of June, the very last day which was open to the appellant, this appeal was filed.

(2.) Now, to my mind, as soon as the statement that the matter had been settled and the property had been reconveyed was brought to the knowledge of the Court, the time of this Court ought not to be occupied in a further hearing of the appeal, and for this reason: at the time the property was reconveyed and the release granted, the Receiver was acting under an order of the Court, which was a perfectly good order at the time, and under that order Mr. Manuk, who was not a party to the suit, obtained possession of the property. Not only that: we are informed that he has in fact parted with it to another individual altogether. Therefore, if we were to reverse this order,--I do not say for a moment that on the merits this is an order which ought not to have been made and we ought to reverse it, but supposing we did--our order would have no effect. We shall have no jurisdiction to order Mr. Manuk to reconvey the property to the Receiver and, therefore, it seems to be quite useless and mere waste of time for this Court to go on discussing the point which has been urged by the appellant. I may say that if there is any injustice or any harm done to anybody, it is entirely the fault of the appellant, because after the warning which he received from the Receiver, the obvious thing for him to do was to file an appeal at once and then to come to this Court and make an application to the Court to restrain the Receiver from acting upon the order of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri, until the hearing of the appeal. Had this course been adopted, the Receiver would not have thought of proceeding with the order of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri. But that obvious course was not adopted. On the contrary, the matter was left until the very last day which was open to the appellant, namely, the 23rd of June. Under these circumstances, I think this appeal should be dismissed.

(3.) The costs of both parties will come out of the estate. John Woodroffe, J.