The appointment of a receiver by the High Court continues to be in force till the preparation of the final decree in the suit, even after the dismissal of an appeal.

Untwalia, J.

1. This miscellaneous first appeal by the appellant, who was defendant No. 1 in a partition suit, is directed against the order dated the 19th of December, 1959, of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing the prayer of the appellant for a direction to the previous receiver, Shri Kali Prasad Singh, Advocate, not to hand over charge to plaintiff respondent No. 1; who was appointed receiver by this Court during the pendency of First Appeal No. 271 of 1953.

2. In the partition suit Kali Prasad Sinha had been appointed receiver by the court below by its order dated the 11th of January, 1950. The plaintiff claimed one-sixth share in the property sought to be partitioned and, by the preliminary decree passed by the court below, the share of the appellant was also declared to be one-sixth. As against the said decree of the court below. First Appeal 271 of 1953 was filed by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed by a Bench of this Court on the 5th of November, 1959, subject to the incorporation in the decree of the right of Srimati Ramsakhi Devi widow of Gorakh Nath Singh deceased, defendant No. 11.

The plaintiff respondent filed an application in this Court on the 20th of October, 1959 for appointing him receiver of the suit property in place of the then receiver, Kali Prasad Sinha. The appellant filed his rejoinder to the said petition. The arguments in the First Appeal also, by that time, were over. The Bench of this Court bv order dated the 28th of October, 1959, appointed the plaintiff as receiver in place of Kali Prasad Sinha and directed the latter to hand over possession of the properties to the former forthwith.

3. After the disposal of the First Appeal, the plaintiff respondent filed a petition on the 9th of November, 1959, in the Court below for directing Shri Kali Prasad Simha, advocate, receiver to submit all the account papers etc. and all other papers concerning the receivership in court at once so that the petitioner may be able to take charge of the same in presence of the court. The appellant, by his petition filed on the same date, asked the court to allow Kali Prasad Sinha to continue as receiver and to reject The plaintiffs prayer. Ultimately, the appellant filed a petition on 15-12-59 praying that the receiver Shri Kali Prasad Sinha be directed not to hand over charge of the estate concerned and the petition of the plaintiff for handing over charge be rejected on the grounds mentioned in the said petition.

The grounds in main were that the Plaintiff was not a fit person to be appointed a receiver and that his appointment by the High Court did not enure after the disposal of the First Appeal. The court below has rejected the Prayer of the appellant. Hence this appeal.

4. Two points were urged in support of this appeal by the learned Government Advocate (i) that the appointment of the plaintiff as receiver by this Court came to an end on dismissal of the First Appeal as it could not enure after the confirmation of the preliminary decree passed in the partition suit by this Court; and (ii) that various allegations had been made by the appellant against the plaintiff and, in view of the terms of the Order dated 28-10-59 of this Court appointing the plaintiff as receiver, the court below was competent to look into, and enquire about, them and to pass necessary orders for the removal of the plaintiff from receivership.

5. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff respondent that no appeal lies against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, which is neither an order appointing a receiver nor one refusing to remove or removing a receiver. It was further contended that the partition suit is continuing and will continue till the preparation of the final decree and the order of this Court appointing the plaintiff as receiver obviously and clearly was meant to be in force and operative till the preparation of the final decree and that no allegation of subsequent event had been made against the plai