Balbir Singh Chib Vs. Sanjay Dave & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6599 of 1999)
Petitioner: Balbir Singh Chib
Respondent: Sanjay Dave & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6599 of 1999)
Judges: A.P. MISRA & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 13, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 26, Rule 9- Appointment of Receiver – Order of appointment vacated because the Appellant absent on the day Receiver went to take possession. Held it was not a justified ground. Another date could be given. Orders set aside and initial orders restored. (Paras 4,5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits deletion of Respondent No.2. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 is deleted from the array of the parties, at the risk of the Appellant. Respondent No.3 is served but has not entered his appearance. Accordingly, we dispose of
this appeal ex parte against this Respondent.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.
4. The Appellant has challenged ad interim order dated 16th April, 1999 passed by the High Court by which an earlier order dated 21st December, 1998, appointing the Receiver was vacated. The sole reason was that on the fixed date and time, when the Receiver reached the place to take possession of the property, the Appellant was absent. We do not find this to be any good reason for vacating the order dated 21.12.1998. If on a particu-lar date the Appellant was not present, another date should have been given by the Receiver to the Appellant. What weighed the court to appoint a Receiver, cannot dissolve only because of absence of Appellant on any one day to deliver possession of the property.
5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 16th April, 1999 and restored back the order dated 21st December, 1998. We further direct that the Appellant will serve certified copy of this order to the appointed Receiver, who will give another date to the Appellant for taking possession of the prop-erty and Appellant shall be present on that date for the delivery of the same. The Receiver will thereafter proceed to act in time of order dated 21st December, 1998. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits deletion of Respondent No.2. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 is deleted from the array of the parties, at the risk of the Appellant. Respondent No.3 is served but has not entered his appearance. Accordingly, we dispose of
this appeal ex parte against this Respondent.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.
4. The Appellant has challenged ad interim order dated 16th April, 1999 passed by the High Court by which an earlier order dated 21st December, 1998, appointing the Receiver was vacated. The sole reason was that on the fixed date and time, when the Receiver reached the place to take possession of the property, the Appellant was absent. We do not find this to be any good reason for vacating the order dated 21.12.1998. If on a particu-lar date the Appellant was not present, another date should have been given by the Receiver to the Appellant. What weighed the court to appoint a Receiver, cannot dissolve only because of absence of Appellant on any one day to deliver possession of the property.
5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 16th April, 1999 and restored back the order dated 21st December, 1998. We further direct that the Appellant will serve certified copy of this order to the appointed Receiver, who will give another date to the Appellant for taking possession of the prop-erty and Appellant shall be present on that date for the delivery of the same. The Receiver will thereafter proceed to act in time of order dated 21st December, 1998. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
