Full Judgment
ORDER
SHEET GA No.1300 of 2013 CS No.697 of 1982 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction BISWANATH MODI & ORS.Versus MAnot KUMAR MODI & ANR.
BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :
12. h August, 2013.
Mr.Sakya Sen, Mr.J.Jhunjhunwala for the defendant no.1.
Ms.Anjana Banerjee for the Receiver.
The Court : The Receiver appointed by order dated 25th July, 2007 seeks discharge by filing this application.
The reason for such discharge is that in view of proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the tenants or occupants of the said premises from whom he was to collect rent or occupation charges are no longer paying him any suMs.The accounts till December, 2011 has also been filed and leave be given to file accounts till the date of discharge.
Hence orders be passed as sought.
Counsel for the defendant no.1 submits that the defendant no.2 has not entered appearance and out of the four plaintiffs three have already died.
Notice to the plaintiff no.3 evidences service but none has appeared to represent the plaintiff no.3.
Therefore, the moneys lying in the hands of the sole Receiver be credited to the account of the trust.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the suit premises is in the process of acquisition for the East-West Metro Corridor project running from Salt Lake, Sector-V to Howrah Station.
Therefore, the purpose for which the Receiver was appointed that is to collect rents will no longer be necessary.
Accordingly, let the Receiver appointed by order dated 25th July, 2007 be discharged and the moneys collected from the tenants or occupants be credited to the account of the trust.
The trustees will invest the said sum marked to ‘C.S.697 of 1982’ in an interest bearing fixed deposit account.
It is true that out of the four plaintiffs, three have expired and one is surviving and although notice has been served on him, none appears on his behalf.
The defendant no.2 has also not entered appearance in the said suit but one is not aware whether the plaintiff no.3 is desirous of proceeding with the said suit.
As the suit is not being dismissed the question of not earmarking the said sum collected by the Receiver or directing appropriation of such moneys by the trust may not enure to the benefit of the parties and it is only to subserve the interest of justice that the aforesaid direction is given.
Liberty is also given to the Receiver appointed by order dated 25th July, 2007 to prematurely encash the fixed deposit account lying in the name of the Joint Receivers with the Standard Chartered Bank, Church Lane Branch, Calcutta so also withdraw sums lying in the Savings Bank account in the name of the Joint ReceiveRs.The said sums be handed to the Trustees.
In view of the aforesaid, there will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Master’s Summons.
The Receiver will file his accounts till this day on and from January, 2012.
In view of the aforesaid, this application is disposed of.
As no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, the allegation contained in the petition is not admitted.
Affidavit of service filed be kept on record.
Receiver, Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Church Lane Branch and all parties to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
( PATHERYA, J.) pa