Effect of the expressions ’struck of’, ’lodged’, ’recorded’ or ’closed’.

This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is against the order of the District Judge of Tiruchirapalli, dated 13th February, 1946, in A.S.No. 321 of 1943 filed against the order of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli, dated 8th July, 1943, in E.P.No. 505 of 1943 in O.S.No. 251 of 1932. The facts are briefly these:

One Kanakavallithayarammal sued her step-son, Muthuvenkatarama Chettiar, and his minor son, Bhaskara Chettiar, for maintenance in O.S.No. 251 of 1932, District Munsif’s Court, Tiruchirapalli. The suit was decreed on 29th November, 1932. Both the defendants were directed by the decree to pay, on or before 29th March, 1933, the maintenance accrued due to the plaintiff at Rs. 14 per month from 1st July, 1931, till the date of the decree, and future maintenance to the plaintiff at Rs. 14 per month from the date of the decree during the life of the plaintiff, at the end of each year, and plaintiff’s costs Rs. 85-2-6. The decree-holder, Kanakavallithayarammal, filed E.P.No. 272 of 1934 praying for the recovery of maintenance which had accrued due till 1st January, 1934 and costs of suit and execution. The amount claimed was Rs. 518-13-0. The reliefs claimed in that execution petition were: (1) to attach the arrears of rents of Rs. 30 due at Rs. 15 each, per month from Ponnuswami Pillai and Baluswami Naidu, two tenants, regarding two shops belonging to ‘the judgment-debtors; (2) for collecting the future rents from these two shops every month from them and depositing them regularly into Court with correct accounts, by appointing the petitioner or anybody else, as the Court thought fit, as receiver for that purpose; (3) out of the rents thus attached, or collected by the receiver, the amount claimed in the execution petition to be paid to the petitioner, and for that purpose, accounts of collections to be filed regularly every month by the receiver appointed. The District Munsif ordered the attachment of the arrears of rents payable by Ponnuswami Pillai and Baluswami. The execution petition was filed in January, 1934. On 11th May, 1934, Ponnuswami Pillai appeared in Court and said that he had paid advance rent enough to cover the rent payable till 15th May, 1934, on which date he was quitting the premises. The fact has not now been disputed and Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar, for the appellants, assures me that Ponnuswami Pillai actually quitted the shop on 15th May, 1934. Baluswami Naidu appeared in Court on 28th June, 1934 and stated that he had been a tenant under the judgment-debtors only till 15th April, 1934, and had paid up his rent in full till then, and that nothing was payable by him,.and that, indeed, the judgment-debtors owed him some money out of the advance of rent paid by him, and that he had attorned after 15th April, 1934, to the knowledge of the judgment-debtors to the mortgagee of the shop, one Muthulakshmi Ammal, from them and executed a registered lease deed in her favour, and so could not be made to pay any rent into Court under this Execution Petition. The District Munsif found the contentions of these two tenants to be too complicated to be gone into in the execution petition. So, he appointed the decree-holder herself as receiver, in E.A.No. 1274 of 1934, a petition filed by the petitioner in that execution petition for the appointment of receiver on 28th July, 1934, and directed her to collect the arrears of rents from the two shops in question filing suits, if necessary, against Ponnuswami Pillai and Baluswami Naidu if they were really liable and to collect the future rents from the premises, from those liable, and deposit the amounts in Court to the credit of the execution petition as prayed for. Curiously enough, he "closed" E.P.No. 272 of 1934 on 28th July, 1934, itself without waiting for the receiver to collect the arrear rents or future rents or to report inability to collect anything, or about the liability of Ponnuswami or Baluswami and the advisability of filing suits against them and passin