Civil Appeal No 1611 of 1971
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated 29 70 of the Judicial Commissioner s Court Tripura Agartala in Civil Misc
1st Appeal No 4 of 1964
section V Gupte D N Mukherjee and G section Chatterjee for the appellant
P K Chatterjee and Rathin Das for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD J
By a deed of mortgage dated February 10 1943 the respondent mortgaged a tea garden called the Ishanchandrapar Tea Estate  to Ms Das Bank Ltd On January 19 1950 the Bank instituted Mortgage Suit No 21950 against the respondent on the original Side of the Tripura High Court for recovering the amount due under the mortgage
On reorganisation of the Judicial Administration in Tripura the suit was transferred to the court of the District Judge Agartala
On January 20 1950 the Bank applied for the appointment of a Receiver
On the District
Judge directing that the Bank should nominate a Receiver in terms of clause 12 of the mortgage deed first the Secretary of the Bank and later another employee called Adhir Ranjan Dutta was appointed as the Receiver subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs 50000
The Receiver took possession of the estate on 22nd January but since the security was not furnished the court directed on an application of the respondent that the Receiver should furnish the requisite security within the time allowed to him
On February 26 1950 the tea garden was damaged by a fire which destroyed over 3000 tea saplings
On 28th February the respondent moved an application asking for damages from the Receiver 358 on the ground that the fire had occurred Due to his negligence
The respondent also renewed his request that the Receiver be asked to furnish security
On August 26 1950 the appellant Ms Howrah Insurance Co Ltd executed a surety bond in the sum of Rs 50000 in favour of Shri R M Goswami District Judge Agartala his successors successors in office and assigns
The bold was approved and accepted by the District Judge on October 10 1950
By virtue of the powers conferred by the Tripura Courts order of 1950 which came into force on December 31 1950 the District Judge transferred the mortgage suit to the court of the Subordinate Judge Agartala
The transferee court was created under the order of 1 950
C The application filed by the respondent on February 28 1950 for damages was heard along with the mortgage suit
The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit on May 31 1956 but he also allowed the respondent s application for damages to the extent of Rs 32525
He directed that the Receiver should pay the amount within two months failing which the amount should be recovered from the security of Rs 50000
Civil Miscellaneous First Appeal No 22 of 1956 filed by the Receiver against that order was dismissed for default by the Judicial commissioner Tripura on December 18 1959
But he allowed the respondent s cross objections and enhanced the damages to Rs 4525
On October 4 1961 respondent filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge Execution Petition No 39 of 1961 against the Receiver and the appellant praying that execution do issue against the appellant as directed by the Court
The appellant filed this objections to that petition but the learned Judge rejected the objections and directed that the damages awarded to the respondent be recovered from the appellant
The appellant filed an appeal against that order but it was dismissed by the learned Judicial Commissioner on June 29 1970
This appeal by special leave is directed against that judgment
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised two contentions l The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit is incompetent to enforce the surety bond executed by the appellant as he is neither the successor nor the successor in office nor the assign of the District Judge and 2 Under the terms of the bond the appellant is not answerable for the loss caused to the tea garden by fire
Both of these contentions turn on the terms of the surety bond and it is therefore necessary to have a look at that bond
The bond is executed both be the Receiver and the appellant in favour of Sri Ramani Mohan Goswami the District Judge of Agartala his successors successors in office and assigns
By the bond the executants bound themselves jointly and severally in the whole of the amount of Rs 50000 up to the District Judge
Agartala his successors 359 successors in office and assigns
The bond though executed on August 26 1950 relates back to January 22 1950 being the date when the Receiver took possession of the property
It is urged that the bond can be enforced only by or at the instance af the District Judge Agartala or his successors successors in office of assigns and the Subordinate Judge Agartala not being either of these it is incompetent for him to enforce the bond
We see no substances in this contention
The Subordinate Judge of Agartala may not be the successors in office of the District Judge because successor in office would mean successor of the District Judge in the post or office of the District Judge
But the Subordinate Judge Agartala is for the purposes of the present proceedings a successor of the District Judge who was seized of the suit and who transferred it to the Subordinate Judge under the Tripura Courts order of 1950
The surety bond was executed in and for the purposes of the particular proceedings which were pending before the District Judge in order that the bond should be enforceable at the instance of the presiding officer of the court
Successor therefore must in the context mean the court which for the time being is seized of the proceedings
Under section 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure save as otherwise provided where the business of any Court is transferred to any other Court the transferee Court has the same powers and is entitled to perform the same duties as those respectively conferred and imposed by the Code upon the transferor Court
The surety bond was a part of the proceedings pending before the District Judge and on the transfer of the Suit the entire proceedings including the bond
stood validly transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge
Thus by virtue of section 150 the Subordinate Judge was entitled to exercise the same powers in the matter of the enforcement of the bond as the District Judge himself
Section 145c of the Code of Civil Procedure provides to the extent material that where any person has become liable as a surety for the fulfilment of any condition imposed on any person under an order of the Court in any suit or in any proceeding J consequent thereon the decree or order may be executed against the surety to the extent to which he has rendered himself personally liable in the manner provided for the execution of decrees
By the surety bond the appellant rendered itself liable as a surety for the fulfilment of the conditions imposed on the Receiver under the orders passed by the court
Therefore the order for the recovery of damages obtained by the respondent against the Receiver can be executed against the appellant to the extent to which it rendered itself personally liable under the terms of the bond
There is no substance in the second contention either
Under the bond the appellant rendered itself liable in respect of any loss or
damage occasioned by any act or default of the Receiver in relation to his duties as such Receiver as aforesaid
The fire having been caused due to the Receiver s negligence in the performance of his duties the appellant is liable to make good the loss caused to the tea garden by the 360 fire
Learned counsel for the appellant however urged that the appointment of the Receiver was limited to the stock in trade machinery and movables in the tea garden and to the factory premises and since the Receiver owed no obligation in relation to the tea garden the appellant would not be liable for the loss caused thereto by the fire
Reliance is placed in support of this argument on the words as aforesaid which qualify the words in relation to his duties
The surety bond has undoubtedly to be construed strictly but it is impossible to accept the contention that the Receiver owed no duty or obligation in respect of the tea garden
He was put in possession of the tea garden in his capacity as a Receiver and indeed parties had made contentions from time to time as to whether the tea garden was managed by the Receiver economically and efficiently
The surety bond would therefore cover the loss occasioned to the tea garden due to the Receiver s default
It is significant that though the bond was executed six months after the tea garden was damaged by the fire it was given retrospective operation with effect from January 22 1950 being the date on which the Receiver had taken possession of the mortgaged property including the tea garden
For these reasons we confirm the judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner and dismiss this appeal with costs
VMK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Messers Das Bank Ltd instituted a mortgage suit against the responded on January 19 1950 in respect of the tea garden mortgaged with them in 1943
On reorganisation of the Judicial Administration in Tripura the suit was transferred from the Tripura High Court to the court of the District Judge Agartala
On the application by the Bank for appointment of a receiver an employee of the Bank was appointed as the receiver subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs 50000
The Receiver took possession of the estate on 22nd January on February 26 1 950 the tea garden was damaged by a tire which destroyed over 3000 tea saplings
The respondent moved an application asking for damages from the Receiver on the ground that the fire had occured due to his negligence
He also renewed his request that the receiver be asked to furnish security
On August 26 1950 the appellant Ms Howrah Insurance Co executed a surety bond in the sum of Rs 50000 in favour of Shri R M Goswami District Judge Agartala his successors successors in office and assigns
The bond was approved and accepted by the District judge on October 10 1950
The bond was executed both by the Receiver and the appellant in favour of Sri Ramani Mohan Goswami the District Judge of Agartala his successors successors in office and assigns
 By the bond the executants bound themselves jointly and severalty in the whole of the amount of Rs 50000 up to the District Judge Agartala his successors successors in office and assigns
The bond though executed on August 26 1950 related back to January 22 1950 being the date when the Receiver took possession of the property
By virtue of the powers conferred by the Tripura Courts order of 1950 which came into force on December 31 1950 the District Judge transferred the mortgage slit to the court of the Subordinate Judge
Agartala
The transferee court was created under the order of 1950
The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit and also allowed the respondent s application for damages to the extent of Rs 32525
The appeal filed by the Receiver was dismissed for default by the Judicial Commissioner Tripura but he allowed the respondent s cross objections and enhanced the damages to Rs 41525
On the Execution Petition filed by the respondent the Subordinate Judge directed that the damages awarded to the respondent be recovered from the appellant The appeal filed by the appellant against that order a dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner and this appeal has been preferred on the basis of the special leave ranted by this Court
It was contended for the appellant that l The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit was incompetent to enforce the surety bond executed by the appellant as he was neither the successor nor the successor in office nor the assign of The District Judge and 2 Under the terms of the bond the appellant was not answerable for the loss caused to the tea garden by fire
Rejecting the contentions and dismissing the appeal HELD  I  i Th Subordinate Judge of Agartala may not be the successor in office of the District Judge because successor in office would mean successor of the District Judge in the post or office of the District Judge
But the Subordinate Judge Agartala is for the purposes of the present proceedings a 357 successor of the District Judge who was seized of the suit and who transferred it to the Subordinate Judge under the Tripura Courts order of 1950
The surety bond was executed in and for the purposes of the particular proceedings which were Pending before the District Judge in order that the bond should be enforceable at the instance of the presiding other of the court
Successor therefore must in the context mean the court which for the time being is seized of the proceedings
359B C ii By virtue of section 1 SO CPC the Subordinate Judge was entitled to exercise the same powers in the matter of the enforcement of the bond as the District Judge himself
359D E iii As laid down by section 145c of tho CPC by the surety bond the appellant rendered itself liable as a surety for the fulfilment of the conditions imposed on the Receiver under the orders passed by the Court Therefore the order for the recovery of damages obtained by respondent against the Receiver can be executed against the appellant to the extent to which it rendered itself personally liable under the terms of the bond
359 FG 2 The Receiver Was put in possession of the tea garden in his capacity as a Receiver and parties had made contentions from time to time as to whether the tea garden was managed by the Receiver economically and efficiently The surety bond which was given retrospective operation with effect from the date on which the Receiver had taken Possession of the mortgaged property including the tea garden would therefore cover the loss occasioned to the tea garden due to the Receiver s default
360B C