SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Mary – Appellant
Versus
Biju P. Sebastian – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:K. Mathew John (K), Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioners are aggrieved as learned Munsiff has declined to appoint a Receiver for the suit property.

2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) has invested with the court a discretionary jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver when it appears to the court “to be just and convenient” to do so. As the provision reads the discretionary jurisdiction arises only when it is shown that it is “just and convenient” to appoint a receiver. It is relevant to note how that expression came into the Code.

3. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 (for short, “the Code of 1882”) dealt with the power of Court to appoint a Receiver thus:

“Chapter XXXVI

Appointment of receivers

503. Whenever it appears to the court to be necessary for the realization, preservation or better custody or management of any property, movable or immovable, the subject of a suit, or under attachment, the court may by order:

(a) appoint a receiver of such property (and, if need be),

(b) remove the person in whose possession or custody the property may be from the possession or custody thereof;

(c) commit the same to the custody or management of such receiver; and

(d ) ……



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top