1 Deen Dayal Sarda Vs. Smt. Sukhi Devi and Ors. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5018/10) Dated : 20.05.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. M.C.Bhoot for the petitioner. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.4.10 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.135/1983 whereby an application made by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 CPC praying that the matter may be heard and decided finally without deciding the pending misc. applications separately, stands rejected. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and settlement of the accounts which is being contested by the petitioner/defendant by filing a written statement thereto. The evidence of the parties stands completed and the matter is posted for final arguments. 3. During the pendency of the suit, an application was made for appointment of Receiver. The matter in this regard came for consideration before this Court in Misc.Appeal No.166/83 wherein vide order dated 6.2.1984, it was ordered that the possession of the machinery as well as land and building may be handed over to the petitioner/defendant along with stock in hand and the petitioner/defendant was directed to work as the Receiver. Accordingly, 2 the possession of the entire assets of the firm was taken over by the petitioner/defendant as Receiver. 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 CPC on 3.4.1989 stating that while appointing the petitioner/defendant as Receiver, inter alia it was directed that he will furnish the regular accounts before the Courts on 1st of every month. It was prayed that the defendant may be directed to produce the details of the accounts so that the correct position of the business may be ascertained. A reply to the application was filed on behalf of petitioner/defendant. However, the application remained pending consideration of the Court. Yet another application was preferred by the respondent/plaintiff for removal of the Receiver alleging the unauthorised acts on his part in breach of the duties assigned to the Receiver. 5. It is submitted that after completion of the evidence, the matter was posted for final hearing on 15.11.2006 and thereafter the same is pending consideration at the stage of final hearing till this date. The petitioner/defendant preferred an application under Section 151 CPC stating that the matter may be finally heard and the application filed need not be heard and disposed of separately inasmuch as the applications shall stand disposed of automatically with the final disposal of the suit. The application was contested on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff by filing counter thereto. 6. It was contended on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff that the suit is filed for dissolution of the partnership firm and settlement of the account, therefore, the application preferred seeking direction for 3 removal of the petitioner/defendant as Receiver and for production of the accounts needs to be heard before the final hearing of the matter. 7. After due consideration, the trial court has arrived at the finding that the application needs to be disposed of before the suit is finally heard and disposed of else the very purpose of filing the application by the respondent/plaintiff shall stand frustrated. Accordingly, the application has been rejected by the order impugned. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel that at this stage, if the misc. application are decided separately keeping the main suit pending then it will result into multiplicity of the proceedings inasmuch as the order passed on the applications may be further challenged. Learned counsel submitted that at this stage of the proceedings, the decision of the applications separately will be a futile exercise and therefore, the Court below ought have heard the matter finally instead of taking a decision to decide the applications preferred separately prior to the final hearing of the suit. 9. Admittedly, the suit pending before the trial court is for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of the account. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is holding the assets of the firm as Receiver and therefore, it goes without saying that he is under an obligation to maintain the account and produce the same before the Court as and when asked for. If the respondent/plaintiff has preferred applications for seeking directions for removal of the Receiver and for direction to furnish the accounts alleging unauthorised acts on the part of the Receiver, then in considered opinion of this Court, the 4 applications preferred have to be decided by the Court before the matter is finally heard. As a matter of fact, the applications should not have been kept pending consideration for all these years till the completion of the trial. Be that as it may, the order impugned passed by the trial court exercising the judicial discretion does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. rp