Anjuman Moiniya F.C.K. Khwaja Sahib Vs. Diwan Syed Ale R.A.S.N.K.M.C. Saheb & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2587 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7632/96)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2588/98 @ SLP (C) No. 7654/98, Civil Appeal No. 2589/98 @ SLP (C) No. 8550/98 CC 4222/98, Civil Appeal No. 2590/98 @ SLP (C) No. 8551/98 CC 4260/98.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7632/96)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2588/98 @ SLP (C) No. 7654/98, Civil Appeal No. 2589/98 @ SLP (C) No. 8550/98 CC 4222/98, Civil Appeal No. 2590/98 @ SLP (C) No. 8551/98 CC 4260/98.
Petitioner: Anjuman Moiniya F.C.K. Khwaja Sahib
Respondent: Diwan Syed Ale R.A.S.N.K.M.C. Saheb & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2587 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7632/96)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2588/98 @ SLP (C) No. 7654/98, Civil Appeal No. 2589/98 @ SLP (C) No. 8550/98 CC 4222/98, Civil Appeal No. 2590/98 @ SLP (C) No. 8551/98 CC 4260/98.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7632/96)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2588/98 @ SLP (C) No. 7654/98, Civil Appeal No. 2589/98 @ SLP (C) No. 8550/98 CC 4222/98, Civil Appeal No. 2590/98 @ SLP (C) No. 8551/98 CC 4260/98.
Judges: K. VENKATASWAMI & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ
Date of Judgment: Apr 05, 1995
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 40-Rule 1 – Receiver – High Court appointing Additional District Judge No. 1 as receiver, while deciding jurisdiction on an execution petition. Held that High Court should have left the matter to the District Judge. Orders of High Court set-aside. Parties given liberty to raise all contentions before the Dis-trict Judge.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Heard counsel on both sides.
2. Leave granted.
3. We refrain from going into the facts in detail.
4. The High Court of Rajasthan while holding that the District Judge, Ajmer has jurisdiction to go into the execution petition and remitting back the matter to him, has also directed the Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer to act as a Receiver in accordance with the provisions of Order 40 Rules 1 to 4 CPC.
5. After hearing counsel on both the sides we are of the view that the High court on the facts of this case could have left the matter to the District Judge, Ajmer for further appropriate orders.
6. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court inso-far as it related to the appointment of Receiver and direct the District Judge, Ajmer to dispose of the Execution Petition in accordance with law.
7. The application for appointment of Receiver can be consid-ered and disposed of separately on merits. Parties are at liberty to raise all contentions available to them in law before the learned District Judge.
8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
1. Heard counsel on both sides.
2. Leave granted.
3. We refrain from going into the facts in detail.
4. The High Court of Rajasthan while holding that the District Judge, Ajmer has jurisdiction to go into the execution petition and remitting back the matter to him, has also directed the Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer to act as a Receiver in accordance with the provisions of Order 40 Rules 1 to 4 CPC.
5. After hearing counsel on both the sides we are of the view that the High court on the facts of this case could have left the matter to the District Judge, Ajmer for further appropriate orders.
6. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court inso-far as it related to the appointment of Receiver and direct the District Judge, Ajmer to dispose of the Execution Petition in accordance with law.
7. The application for appointment of Receiver can be consid-ered and disposed of separately on merits. Parties are at liberty to raise all contentions available to them in law before the learned District Judge.
8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
