IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 31251 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------- IA. NO.1750/08 IN OS.2/2007 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M.P.JACOB, MANGALAM HOUSE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.FEBIN J.VELUKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. PRASAD PUNNOOSE, MANGALAM HOUSE, KALADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M.P.PUNNOOSE, MANGALAM HOUSE, ALATTUCHIRA, KODANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. M.P.CHERIAN, MANGALAM HOUSE, KODANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SINDHU THOMAS, D/O.M.P.JACOB, MANGALAM HOUSE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. AMEENA JACOB, W/O.M.P.JACOB MANGALAM HOUSE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, SUB COURT, PARAVUR R1 BY ADVS. MR.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY R6 BY MR.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL), MR.P.V.SREENIJIN, SMT.K.B.SONY, MR.PRASUN.S, MR.SANU.S.PANICKER, MR.K.T.BOSCO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON 22/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 31251/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1(a) & (b):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CMA 129/95 AND CMA. 196/96 DTD. 22.3.96 AND 21/8/1996. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 4743/05 OF THE COURT BELOW ALLOWING THE 6TH RESPONDENT RECEIVED TO TAKE IN COME DIRECTLY. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP.13423/08. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW IN IA.1750/08 IS DTD.29TH JANUARY 200. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW IN IA. 474/09 (CHEQUE APPLICATION NO.5/09-10.) TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.31251 of 2009-O ------------------------------------- Dated 22nd March 2010 Judgment The petitioner challenges the legality of Ext.P5 order passed by the Sub Court, Perumbavoor in IA No.474/09 in OS No.2/07. 2. The impugned order was passed on a cheque application filed by the Receiver appointed in OS No.2/07. The suit was one for partition. Considerable extents of properties were involved in the suit and as an interim arrangement, initially, a Receiver was appointed to auction the plots among the sharers themselves. It so happened that in 2005, the Receiver was directed by the Court to take the income from the property directly. Various other facts are also mentioned in the petition, which are not very relevant for the present purpose. 3. It seems that the Receiver filed Cheque Application No.5/09-10 (IA No.474/09), seeking to withdraw WPC 31251/09 2 an amount of Rs.1,06,435/-. That was opposed by the petitioner and he wanted the Receiver to disclose the details of the income collected by him for the period 2005- 08 and the accounts regarding the same. He also wanted an audit of those accounts. 4. The Court below passed Ext.P5 order, whereby the cheque application filed by the Receiver was allowed and it was held that the amount will be received by the Receiver, subject to audit of accounts to be conducted. That order is under challenge in this Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that from 2005 till 2008, the Receiver was taking the income directly and he has not submitted any accounts before the Court. All that has been done is to submit some chits of papers, said to be the accounts. The petitioner submits, this is causing considerable prejudice to him and the others in the partition suit. It is therefore, contended that the Cheque Application should not have been allowed unless the accounts were audited. WPC 31251/09 3 6. The Receiver is represented by a counsel before this Court and he has also filed a counter affidavit, stating the details of what has transpired during 2005-08. The Receiver has stated that he has submitted proper accounts for the income received by him and the accounts are to be audited under the orders of the Court and it may not be possible for him to engage an independent Auditor. 7. In the impugned order itself, the details of the amount which is due to the Receiver have been mentioned. It has also been mentioned that the amount disbursed to the Receiver will be subject to audit check. Insistence of the petitioner that the Receiver should get an Auditor appointed in his personal capacity, cannot be countenanced. The Receiver was appointed by the Court and it is the Court, which has to make arrangements for having the accounts audited. 8. There is no merit in this Writ Petition at all. However, this Petition is disposed of reserving the liberty of the petitioner to take such steps as are available to him in WPC 31251/09 4 law to have the accounts audited. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 31251/09 5