1918 (7) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for revision of an order refusing leave to sue a Receiver.
2. Validity of the attachment before judgment.
3. Allegation of benami purchase.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the Subordinate Judge's order.
5. Material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Subordinate Judge.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Revision of an Order Refusing Leave to Sue a Receiver:
The judgment addresses an application for revision of an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum, which refused leave to the petitioners to sue a Receiver appointed by the Court in an administration suit involving the Trigunait brothers. The petitioners sought to sue the Receiver to protect their alleged leasehold interests in the property.

2. Validity of the Attachment Before Judgment:
The Receiver had applied for an attachment before judgment on 4th May 1914, which was issued conditionally. The petitioners argued that the attachment was defective and did not specify the properties adequately. The Executing Court later discovered the defect and ordered a fresh attachment process. The Court noted that the sale proclamation was issued without a fresh attachment, which could prejudice the petitioners if their properties were wrongfully sold.

3. Allegation of Benami Purchase:
The petitioners claimed that Charu Chandra Mitra purchased the right, title, and interest of the Angarpatra Coal Company on their behalf with their money, making him a benamidar. They contended that their interest as sub-lessees did not merge with Charu Chandra Mitra's interest. The opposite party argued that the petitioners had no bona fide claim and that the purchase was not benami. The Court emphasized that the question of benami purchase is a factual issue requiring investigation.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Interfere with the Subordinate Judge's Order:
The High Court examined whether it had jurisdiction to interfere with the Subordinate Judge's order under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. The Court concluded that there was material irregularity in the Subordinate Judge's exercise of jurisdiction by not investigating the facts adequately. The High Court held that it could correct such irregularities under its supervisory jurisdiction.

5. Material Irregularity in the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the Subordinate Judge:
The Court found that the Subordinate Judge had proceeded on suspicion without proper inquiry into the petitioners' allegations. The Court stressed that the petitioners were entitled to an inquiry based on the materials furnished and, if necessary, to present evidence. The failure to investigate the facts constituted a material irregularity, warranting the High Court's interference.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the application for revision, granting leave to the petitioners to sue the Receiver. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the necessity of investigating factual issues before making a decision. The application was allowed with costs, and the Court suggested that the trial Court consider appropriate measures to protect the petitioners' interests during the trial.