Mahendra H. Patel Vs. Ram Narayan Singh
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 9205 of 1995
Petitioner: Mahendra H. Patel
Respondent: Ram Narayan Singh
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 9205 of 1995
Judges: S. SAGHIR AHMAD & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 03, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW/PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 40, Rule 1 – Appointment of Receiver – Civil suit – Applications by Respondent for further interim relief – Lower Court and lower appellate court rejecting the applications – Writ Petition – No prayer from either party for the appointment of any Receiver – High Court suo motu ap-pointing Receiver – Whether correct. Held it is not open to the High Court in a Writ Petition to appoint a Receiver when none of the parties had asked for it.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.2.1995 by which the High Court appointed a Receiver in respect of the property in suit.
2. It will be noticed that the trial court as also the lower ap-pellate court rejected the applications of the Respondent for further interim relief during the pendency of R.A.D. Suit No. 579/1994 as the trial court as also the lower appellate court did not deem it fit to pass any further interim order and consequently the applications were dismissed on merits.
3. In our opinion, it was not open to the High Court in a Writ Petition against that order to appoint a Receiver in re-spect of the property in question under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC. particularly when none of the parties had asked for it. The power to appoint a Receiver suo motu cannot be exercised in the manner in which it was exercised by the High Court.
4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 7.2.1995 passed by the Bombay High Court and direct that hearing of the Suit No. 579/1994 shall be expedited.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.2.1995 by which the High Court appointed a Receiver in respect of the property in suit.
2. It will be noticed that the trial court as also the lower ap-pellate court rejected the applications of the Respondent for further interim relief during the pendency of R.A.D. Suit No. 579/1994 as the trial court as also the lower appellate court did not deem it fit to pass any further interim order and consequently the applications were dismissed on merits.
3. In our opinion, it was not open to the High Court in a Writ Petition against that order to appoint a Receiver in re-spect of the property in question under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC. particularly when none of the parties had asked for it. The power to appoint a Receiver suo motu cannot be exercised in the manner in which it was exercised by the High Court.
4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 7.2.1995 passed by the Bombay High Court and direct that hearing of the Suit No. 579/1994 shall be expedited.
