The provisions of Section 12(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act empower the court to make interlocutory orders, including orders for the appointment of a receiver, for the protection of the person or property of a minor. Such orders are appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THESE analogous First Appeal From Order and Civil Revision involve similar questions for determination hence it is convenience to dispose them of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THIS is defendants (the mother of minor Rishabh Chhabra) First Appeal From Order under order 43 Rule l (s) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short the Code) directed against the impugned orders dated 15. 10. 1990 and 7. 9. 1990 passed in Misc. Case No. 1l5 of 1990 arising out of proceedings under Sections 7 and 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 (for short the act ).

( 3 ) THE factual matrix of the case is that Sri Vinay Chhabra husband of Smt. Savita Chhabra (for short the appellant) died in a motor accident leaving behind him his minor son Rishabh Chhabra. Thereafter, Ramjeet Chhabra real brother of deceased Vinay Chhabra and the uncle of the minor and a partner in the Firm got himself appointed as guardian of the person and property of minor. When Smt. Savita Chhabra, mother of minor Rishabh Chhabra learnt that even though she was mother and natural guardian but was not appointed as guardian, made an application under section 39 of the Act on the grounds that she, being real mother of minor was natural guardian and she could look after the interest of minor better than Ramjeet Chhabra the respondent contending partner whose interest was conflicting to that of the Minor. During pendency of aforesaid application, another application under Section 12 of the Act, read with Order 40 of the code, for an interlocutory order for the appointment of the Receiver, was made so that the person and property of the minor in the partnership firm may be protected. That application was rejected by order dated 7. 9. 1990 passed by the District Judge which is quoted below:

"heard. This is an application for appointment of Receiver No Receiver can be appointed in these proceedings under law. Rejected. "

( 4 ) AGAINST this order Civil Revision has been filed. Another application for appointment of receiver and payment of interim maintenance was moved by the appellant. That application was also rejected by an order dated 15. 10. 90, even after holding (vide page 56 of paper book, under para 4) that receiver can be appointed. But it was held that the earlier order dated 7. 9. 90 would operate as resjudicata.

( 5 ) THE order dated 7. 9. 1990 has been challenged in the civil Revision and both the orders have been challenged in the aforesaid First Appeal From Order. The Civil Revision was time barred but after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, as sufficient ground was made out, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed and now Civil Revision and first Appeal From Order would be decided on merits.

( 6 ) MR. S. N. Misra, learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant urged that the legislature in its wisdom has enacted Section 120) of the Act in a language which has very wide sweep, and order for appointment of Receiver can be passed under Section 12 of the Act and Order 40, of the code. Even though under Section 47 of the Act this order has not been made appellable; but the provisions of Sections 12 and 47 of the Act may be read along with Section 141 of the Code, and as the present proceedings under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act and other proceedings under other sections of the Act are certainly of civil nature, consequently provisions of Section 141 of the code would apply, hence against the order rejecting the application under Section 12 of the Act for the appointment of Receiver or an application under Order 40 of the Code, F. A. F. O. would lie under Order 43 Rule 1 (s) of the Code. In the alternative, it was also urged that the orders under Section 48, as the finality of an order under the Act has been attached but the orders including the orders under Section 12 (1) the Act rejecting application for appointment of receiver is certainly revisable under Section 115 of the Code which was equivalent to Section 622 of