A Receiver appointed in a suit continues to be such till he is discharged, even after the passing of the final decree, if the suit has not been finally disposed of and the Receiver is expressly directed to continue.

Judgment

K. SUBBA RAO

( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 14/10/1960, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad confirming the order passed by the Civil Judge, Agra, directing the Official Receiver to take possession of the property of the appellant.

( 2 ) THIS case illustrates how the enforcement of an interlocutory order appointing a Receiver made in the interest of all the parties concerned could be obstructed and the object of the order itself be defeated by dilatory tactics adopted by one party or other.

( 3 ) AT Agra, there were three spinning mills and one flour mill, all of which together were described as the Johns Mills; and, originally, the John family or their predecessors were the owners of all these mills. At the time the present proceedings were initiated, other persons had acquired interest therein. The following persons were the joint owners of the mills: (1) Hiralal Patni, ( the appellant, and Munni Lal Mehra. . . . 19/40th sharer; (2) Gambhirmal Pandia Private Ltd. . . . . . 8/ 40th share; (3) Messrs. John and Co. . . 11/ 40th share; and (4) I. E. John. . . . . . . 2/40th share. Seth Loonkaran Sethiya, respondent No. 1 advanced large amounts to Messrs. John and Co. on the security of its business assets and stocks. On 18/04/1949, the said Sethiya filed O. S. No. 76 of 1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra, against John and Co. for the recovery of the amount due to him by sale of the assets of the said company. To that suit the partners of Messrs. John and Co. for convenience described as defendants 1st set", and the partners of Messrs. Johns Jain and Co. , who were for convenience described as "defendants 2nd set", were made parties. Pending the suit, the said Sethiya filed an application under O. XL, R. I, Code of Civil Procedure, for the appointment of a Receiver. By an order. dated 21/05/1949, the learned Civil Judge appointed two joint Receivers and directed them to run the three spinning mills. Hiralal Patni filed an appeal against that order to the High Court at Allahabad, and the said Court by its order dated. 22/08/1949, modified the order of the Civil Judge confining the order of appointment of Receivers only to the share of Messrs John and Co. in John Jain Mehra and Co. Loonkaran Sethiya made another application in the Court of the Civil Judge for the appointment of a Receiver for the property of Hiralal Pani and the learned Civil Judge by his order dated December, 1951, directed the Receivers to take possession of the appellants share in the mills also. Against this order an appeal was preferred to the High Court and the operation of the said order was stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. On 5/04/1954, the Civil judge passed a preliminary decree against the defendants therein directing them to deposit the decree amount in court within the prescribed time, and in default the plaintiff was given a right to apply for a final decree for sale of the business assets of the defendants. The decree also gave a right to apply for a personal decree in case the sale proceeds were not sufficient to discharge the decree. The preliminary decree directed that the Receivers should continue on the property until discharged. Hiralal Patni preferred an appeal to the High Court against the said preliminary decree and applied for interim stay of its operation. On 23/08/1955, the High Court discharged the Receivers appointed by the learned Civil Judge, and appointed another Receiver in their place. On 25/03/1955, the learned Civil Judge prepared a scheme for running the mills, and the parties preferred appeals against that scheme to the High Court. The said appeals were compromised and under the terms of the compromise the parties agreed to take different mills on lease for a period of three years from the Receiver. On 14/01/1956, the Receiver executed a lease in respect of the flour mill in favour of Hiralal Patni for a period of three years. Under the lease deed it was