Dave, J.—The above noted appeal and revision arise out of same case and therefore they are disposed of together.

2. The facts giving rise to them are that Ramswarup, who is appellant in the appeal and non petitioner No. 1 in the revision application, has filed a suit for possession of gold and silver ornaments and utensils in the court of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur. It has been averred by him that he was adopted as a son by Shrikishan, deceased husband of defendant No. 1, Mst. Kesar, Bansilal, defendant No. 2 is brother of defendant No. 1. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 has given certain ornaments to defendant No. 2 and that she wants to deprive the plaintiff of other ornaments and utensils which are in her possession on behalf of the plaintiff. He has filed with the plaint two lists first being about those articles which are said to have been given away to defendant No. 2 and the other about the ornaments and utensils which are still in possession of defendant No. 1.

3. On the same date on which the suit was instituted, i. e , 15.10.56, the plaintiff presented an application requesting the court to appoint a receiver and direct him to take into his possession the disputed property. The trial court allowed this application, appointed a receiver and directed him to take possession of the disputed property and prepare its inventory. It appears that after the said order, the receiver put his locks on a few rooms and also pasted slips on the door. On 12.11.56, the plaintiff moved another application in the trial court stating that the receiver had locked 7 or 8 rooms which also contained certain things belonging to the plaintiff. In particular, it was mentioned that, account books, rent notes and other papers belonging to the plaintiff and which related to the property for which the suit was filed, were also placed in those rooms. It was, therefore, prayed that the receiver should be directed to prepare an inventory of the ornaments and utensils in dispute and that other papers and articles belonging to the plaintiff should be ordered to be returned to him or in the alternative the receiver should be asked to prepare their inventory also and keep them in his custody. On 21.11.56. the trial court passed an order that the receiver should prepare an inventory only of those ornaments and utensils about which the suit was filed. It rejected the plaintiffs application for preparing an inventory of other articles which were not claimed in the plaint. The plaintiff felt aggrieved by this order and he has preferred an appeal against it It may be mentioned here that after the said appeal was filed, an interim order was passed on 30.11.56 by this Court as below:—

"The court below will get a list of all the account-books, found in the rooms, which have been locked, prepared by the receiver.

4. Thereafter, learned counsel for the plaintiff moved another application in the trial court under O. 39, r. 7 and sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was contended by the plaintiff that O. 39, r 7 authorised the trial court not only to pass an order for detention preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject-matter of the suit but also of other property as to which any question may arise therein. It was urged before that court that a question could arise as to the account-books which contained all the details about the property in dispute and that if those account-books were not preserved the plaintiff would be put to a great loss. This application was hotly contested by the defendant. The trial court, however, came to the conclusion that the course sought by the plaintiff was covered by second part of O. 39, r. 7, Clause (a). It, therefore, ordered the receiver that along with the list of gold and silver ornaments and utensils he should also make a list of the account-books and the following documents :—

(1) documents which strictly relate to ornaments and utensils.

(2) mortgage-deeds.

(a) by Meghraj P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document