The Court upheld the appointment of the Advocate Receiver and the special directions given for taking the account, citing the provisions of Order XL, Rule 1 and Order XX, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the common fair and decretal order dated 13.09.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.847 of 2019 & 44 of 2017 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.)

These two civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed challenging the correctness of the impugned decretal order dated 13.9.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.847 of 2019 & 44 of 2017 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry, raising the following substantial questions of law:-

“(i) When this Court, while disposing of the A.S.No.16 of 2011 by its order dated 27.3.2017, directed the parties to workout their remedy before the concerned Court where the comprehensive suit is pending, whether the impugned decretal order can be passed appointing an Advocate Receiver to collect all the relevant records and accounts of the firm from P.W.1- Apparsamy, Commissioner, Oulgaret Municipality, Income Tax Office, Pondicherry, Auditor of the firm and any other authority?

(ii) When the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.130 of 2008 has directed the defendants therein including the appellant herein to furnish full accounts of receipts and expenditure of the firm for the period from 2004 to 2007 to the Receiver, whether that period can be modified from 2004 till the date of judgment?”

2. It is the case of the appellant that when the suit in O.S.No.130 of 2008 was filed by Mr.K.Ramesh, the plaintiff therein (i) directing the defendants therein to furnish full accounts of receipts and expenditure of the firm for the period from 1995 to 2007; (ii) directing the payment of such amounts that may be due to the plaintiff; (iii) appointment of official Receiver and cost of the suit, another suit in O.S.No.45 of 2009 was filed by Mr.R.Perumal @ Kaliyaperumal and Mr.P.Apparsamy seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men from interfering with the conduct of the business, administration of the plaintiffs firm and from entering into the theatre premises in any manner. By a common judgment dated 1.10.2010, O.S.No.130 of 2008 was decreed as follows:-

“21. In the result, O.S.No.130 of 2008 is decreed as follows: (i) Thiru M.Udaya Baskar, Advocate is appointed as Receiver on a remuneration of Rs.7,500/- per month and he shall finish his mission within six months from the date of the judgment. (ii) The defendants shall furnish the full accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the firm for the period from 2004 to 2007 to the Receiver-Mr.M.Udaya Baskar, Advocate, who shall determine the amount payable to the plaintiff as directed in paragraph-19 above.

(iii) The defendants shall pay to the plaintiff such amounts that may be found due and payable to the plaintiff by the Receiver.”

2.1. The trial Court passed a decree in O.S.No.45 of 2009, as follows:- “O.S.45 of 2009 is decreed granting the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the firm M/s Balaji Theatre managed by the plaintiffs and that the defendants shall not enter the premises of Balaji Theatre.”

3. Aggrieved thereby, A.S.No.16 of 2011 was filed against the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2010 passed in O.S.No.45 of 2009 by Mr.K.Ramesh and Mrs.R.Kavitha against M/s Balaji Theatre represented by its partners Mr.R.Perumal @ Kaliaperumal and P.Apparsamy. As the suit was filed for permanent injunction, the entire issue was with regard to the affairs of the partnership firm run by the father and son. Since the father has filed the suit restraining his son from interfering with the affairs of the firm, which has been decreed by the trial Court, learned counsel appearing for both parties submitted before this Court that the parties have filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.115 of 2011 and both the parties were willing to workout their remedy