9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the ex parte decree passed by Rangnekar. 2. Legitimacy of the payments made by the receiver in another suit to the plaintiffs. 3. Applicability of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to defendant 6's claim. 4. Applicability of Order 34, Rule 14, CPC to mortgages of movable property. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Ex Parte Decree: The appeal concerns an ex parte decree passed by Rangnekar, which was not discussed before the learned Judge. The Official Assignee, representing the estates of defendants 2 and 3 (insolvents), challenges the decree on two grounds: against the plaintiffs and against defendant 6, a subsequent mortgagee. 2. Legitimacy of Payments by the Receiver: The plaintiffs were given a pledge to secure Rs. 50,000 on machinery and other assets of a printing press. The plaintiffs commenced a suit to enforce their pledge, and subsequently, a receiver was appointed. Payments of Rs. 1,500 per month were ordered to be made to the plaintiffs from the funds of the Shri Venkateshvar Press. These payments were contested by the Official Assignee, who argued that they were made out of properties not subject to the plaintiffs' charge and benefited defendant 6. However, the court found this claim untenable, stating that the plaintiffs received the sums from an officer of the Court under its orders, and it was impossible to order the plaintiffs to repay any amount. The court criticized the provision in the decree that ordered the receiver in another suit to make payments to the plaintiffs, stating that it was made without jurisdiction and must be struck out. 3. Applicability of Order 2, Rule 2, CPC to Defendant 6's Claim: Defendant 6 was given a charge on the Shri Venkateshvar Printing Press to secure a sum he had guaranteed. He obtained a personal judgment for this amount but did not obtain leave of the Court to sue on the mortgage. The appellant argued that defendant 6 could not enforce his security due to Order 2, Rule 2, CPC, which requires all claims arising from the same cause of action to be included in one suit unless leave is obtained. The court found that defendant 6 did not show that leave was obtained, and therefore, he could not enforce his mortgage security. The court rejected the argument that Order 34, Rule 14, CPC, which allows a mortgagee to institute a suit for sale of mortgaged property notwithstanding Order 2, Rule 2, applied to this case, as Order 34 is confined to mortgages of immovable property. 4. Applicability of Order 34, Rule 14, CPC to Mortgages of Movable Property: The court held that Order 34, Rule 14, CPC, does not apply to mortgages of movable property. The historical context and the heading of Order 34, which refers to "Suits relating to mortgages of immovable property," indicate that it is confined to immovable property. Therefore, defendant 6's counter-claim to enforce his mortgage on movable property fails. However, the court acknowledged that Order 2, Rule 2, CPC, does not extinguish defendant 6's mortgage but only prevents him from suing to enforce it. As a defendant in the plaintiffs' suit, he is entitled to prove his mortgage and receive any balance of the proceeds of sale after the plaintiffs' debt is satisfied. Conclusion: The court modified the decree by striking out the provision for future payments by the receiver in another suit and confining defendant 6's rights to redeeming the plaintiffs' mortgage and receiving any balance from the sale proceeds. The court emphasized that orders directing payments by receivers in other suits should not be made without proper jurisdiction and all relevant parties being before the Court. The Official Assignee's appeal was partially upheld, and costs were awarded accordingly.
|
