Back
Judges : SUBRAMONIA IYER
Kochu Kumari - Appellant
Versus
Krishnan Janardhanan - Respondent
Case No : C. R. P. No. 694 of 1951
Decided On : 11/21/1951
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: N. Varadaraja Iyengar, Advocate. For the Respondent: C. K. Sivasankara Panicker, Advocate.
Revision - Removal of Receiver - The court held that the order refusing to remove a receiver is not appealable, but a revision lies. The order refusing to remove the receiver was set aside, and the case was sent back for fresh disposal after considering the grounds for removal and objections raised by the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought revision of an order refusing to remove the Receiver. The court held that the revision is maintainable and set aside the order, sending the case back for fresh disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order refusing to remove the receiver was not appealable, but a revision was maintainable. The lower court's summary disposal of the matter was set aside, and the case was directed to be disposed of expeditiously after considering the grounds for removal and objections raised by the respondent.
Issues: Maintainability of revision, sufficiency of facts alleged in the petition to quash the order, and the need for detailed consideration of grounds for removal of the Receiver.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established is that while an order refusing to remove a receiver is not appealable, a revision lies. The court emphasized the need for detailed consideration of grounds for removal and objections raised by the respondent.
Final Decision: The order refusing to remove the receiver was set aside, and the case was sent back for fresh disposal after considering the grounds for removal and objections raised by the respondent.
1. The petitioner seeks revision of an order passed by the court below refusing to remove the Receiver. On the question as to whether this revision is maintainable or not, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of Fazal Ali, C.J. of the Patna High Court (he then was) sitting with another learned judge of the same court to the effect that whatever may be the position as regards orders actually removing Receivers, an order refusing to remove a receiver is certainly not appealable. (Vide Surendra v. Nasar Chand - ILR. 25 Pat. 775). With great respect I follow that decision and hold that the order in this case is not appealable and therefore a revision lies. On the merits of the application, the lower court says that "the facts alleged in the petition are insufficient to quash the order passed by this Court". It appears to me that the matter cannot be disposed of in this summary fashion and the learned Munsiff is bound to deal with the various grounds on which the relief by way of removal of the Receiver is sought and come to a conclusion. The order sought to be revised is therefore set aside, the revision is allowed and the case sent back to the Munsiff's Court for fresh disposal after bestowing attention upon the various grounds relied upon in support of the petition as also objection raised by the respondent in the matter of granting the relief. The records will be sent back to the court below forthwith. The court below is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The costs of this revision will abide the result and will be provided for by the lower court in its revised record.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
