LAWS(PVC)-1929-11-5

PRASADDAS SEN Vs. KSBONNERJEE

Decided On November 29, 1929
PRASADDAS SEN Appellant
V/S
KSBONNERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in this suit are three in number Prasaddas Sen,. Santoshlal Sen and Hrishikesh Sen. They bring their suit against Kamalkrishna. Shelley Bonnerjee, Official Receiver of this Court, and their case is that in Suit No. 923 of 1919, by a consent decree,, dated 8 July 1920, the Official Receiver was appointed a receiver of certain immovable properties belonging to the defendants in that suit, including the promises known as No. 1, Shama Bai Lane, and; that pursuant to an order, dated 10 September 1920, the Official Receiver took: possession of the said premises under the consent decree. The defendants in the previous suit were a firm trading under the name or style of B. N. Sen & Brothers, in which firm the plaintiffs and1. Bholanath Sen, defendant 2 in the present suit, were partners.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that the premises; No. 1, Shama Bai Lane, were let to one Ramnarayan Jalan on a monthly rent of Rs. 4-01 and they allege that the Official Receiver wilfully neglected and defaulted in realizing regularly the rents of the said premises and took no steps for the collection thereof, as a result of which considerable loss and damage-has been caused to the plaintiffs.

(3.) In particular they say that a sum-amounting to Rs. 16,660, being arrears of rent due from the said Ramnarayan Jalan, has been lost and has become irrecoverable by the wilful default and gross negligence of the defendant in failing to collect the same as receiver. The plaintiffs have joined Bholanath Sen as a defendant to the present suit as he has refused to join them as a plaintiff. The plaintiffs ask for a decree against the Official Receiver for Rs. 16,660 and also for an order that he do render accounts on the footing of wilful default and that judgment may be given against him for such sum as may be found due upon such account. The suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that, under Section 80, Civil P.C., it was obligatory on the plaintiffs to give notice as therein prescribed.