This civil revision petition challenged an order requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000 alongside Receiver-approved expenditure. The High Court held the order patently illegal and contrary to the record, as it doubled the intended sum without justification.
The impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000 is set aside. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1386 of 2010
ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S.No.22 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa for dissolution of partnership firm between himself and respondent No.1 and for rendition of accounts. Respondent No.2 was appointed as a Receiver to administer the schedule property during the pendency of the suit. He filed a memo before the trial Court for payment of Rs.10,000/to meet the initial expenditure. The trial Court, however, directed the parties to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/-, through order, dated 07.04.2009. The petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3491 of 2009 stating that when the requirement itself was Rs.10,000/-, there was no justification for the trial Court in directing him also, to deposit Rs.10,000/-. The C.R.P. was disposed of on 03.08.2009, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a fresh memo bringing the anomaly to the notice of the trial Court itself. A memo is said to have been filed. Still, the trial Court passed an order, dated 22.02.2010, observing that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid by respondent No.1 and that the petitioner is under obligation to pay a further sum of Rs.10,000/-. The same is challenged in this revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
A perusal of the memo, dated 16.03.2009, filed by the Receiver discloses that he wanted a sum of Rs.10,000/- to meet the initial expenditure. The said amount has to be arranged in accordance with the terms of his appointment, if any. In the absence of the same, the parties to the suit can be required to
share it equally. However, the trial Court directed that a sum of Rs.10,000/- each be paid, totalling a sum Rs.20,000/-. That order was patently illegal and contrary to record. Out of sheer respect for the trial Court, the petitioner herein was required to file a memo bringing that fact to the notice of the trial Court. It is rather unfortunate that the same mistake is committed even after such an exercise. The order under revision cannot be sustained.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:27.09.2010.
kdl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court's order directing equal payment of Rs.10,000 by parties where a Receiver was appointed was patently illegal.
Whether the order imposing a double sum contrary to the Receiver's appointment terms is sustainable in revision.
Whether the trial Court erred in directing the petitioner to pay a further sum despite prior payment by the Respondent.
Petitioner
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
L.NARASIMHA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
