DILMAN RAI Vs. SRINARAYAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the records ourselves, we are satisfied that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gangtok, appointing a receiver pendente lite in respect of the disputed lands, must be set aside.

(2.) The suit now pending before the Civil Judge, in which the impugned order has been passed, has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for declaration of title, mesne profits and other consequential reliefs on the allegation that he has purchased the disputed land through a sale deed from the defendant No. 2/respondent No. 2, who is the brother of the present petitioner/respondent No. 1. The allegation further is that when the sale deed was presented for registration, the petitioner-defendant No. 1 in collusion with his brother the defendant No. 2. preferred objection to the registration as a result whereof the registration was stopped and the District Officer directed the petitioner/defendant No. 1 to have the disputes adjudicated by the Civil Court. A civil suit was accordingly filed by the defendants which was, however, dismissed and the decree of dismissal was also upheld by this Court on appeal. But in spite of such dismissal the defendant No. 1, who has all along been in possession and enjoyment of the disputed lands, has not vacated the same and has thereby compelled the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to file the present suit for declaration of title and other reliefs and also for compulsory registration of the sale deed through Court, the same not having been registered as yet. The plaintiff has also filed an application for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite and the learned Civil Judge has by the impugned order, appointed a receiver in respect of the disputed lands and on appeal having been preferred against that order to the Court of the District Judge by the petitioner/defendant No. 1, the learned District Judge has upheld the impugned order. Hence this revisional application by the defendant No. 1.

(3.) It appears from the impugned order that the learned Civil Judge has appointed a receiver pendente lite long after the defendants have entered their appearance and filed written statements. But even then the learned Judge has heard the application ex parte. appointed receiver as prayed for, without issuing notice to the defendants at any point of time to show cause against the order. It is true that a Court can. if the circumstances so warrant, pass an ex parte interim order appointing a receiver while at the same time issuing notice to the party affected thereby to show cause against the order passed. But a final order appointing a receiver, as has been passed in this case, without any notice to the party affected and without giving him any opportunity to show cause against the order can never be justified. Now that it is a settled law (vide : State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei. AIR 1967 SC 1269 at 1272) that "even an administrative order which involved civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice", a judicial order must a fortiori comply with such rules unless the relevant law governing the matter rules out such rules expressly or by irresistible implication.