LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Specific relief act

(Querist) 06 November 2013 This query is : Resolved 
please Discuss; "Maintainability of an Appeal against District court Order of appointment of Receiver Pending the suit filed under section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 in view of bar under section 6(3) of specific Relief Act. (suit is not finalised and order is of District Court)
R.K Nanda (Expert) 07 November 2013
state full facts.
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 07 November 2013
Come out with full facts for fruitful advise.
A Kumar (Querist) 08 November 2013
Dear Mr. R. K. Nanda & Mr. Goyal,
thanks to enquire about the facts which are as under:
Plaintiff filed Suit under section 6 of specific Relief act, 1963 in a District Court. Defendant filed Counter claim and which was rejected and appeal against it was also dismissed. During Pendency of an appeal, stay was granted by High court. district court framed the issues during stay. Pending the suit, instead of proceeding further on evidence, Plaintiff urged to hear Ex. 5 application for appointment of an Receiver. Inspite of defendants objection to hear Ex. 5 after issues are framed, District Court heard application (Ex.5) and appointed Receiver and defendant was ordered to deliver possession within one month of an order. Defendant filed an Appeal against order of appointment of Receiver before High court. Plaintiff has challenged the maintainability of an Appeal on the basis of section 6(3) of S.R. Act which prohibits any appeal against order or decree passed in section 6 of S.R. Act. In this contest, my question is whether plaintiff is right to challenge the maintainability of an Appeal against District court Order of appointment of Receiver Pending the suit filed under section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 in view of bar under section 6(3) of specific Relief Act.
Vikrant (Expert) 08 November 2013
Hello Mr. Kumar,

Please mention why the said suit u/s 6 was filed in the first place. You need to tell the facts of the case for better view. What you have described are the Court proceedings and not the actual case.
A Kumar (Querist) 08 November 2013
Dear Mr. Vikrant,
suit under Section 6 of S.R. Act is to be filed within six months of dispossession of plaintiff by the defendant forcibly by taking law into his hands (i.e. without due process of law). it is not difficult to understand for an expert to understand from the facts given. it is natural that plaintiff is dispossessed by defendant without due process of law and suit is filed by plaintiff within 6 months of such dispossession. my query is not on maintainability of suit under section 6 but on maintainability of an appeal .... (please see my question) .
Ms.Nirmala P.Rao (Expert) 09 November 2013
This is a repeated query.
ajay sethi (Expert) 09 November 2013
repeated query no reply
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 09 November 2013
No reply for repeated query.
A Kumar (Querist) 11 November 2013
dear Mr. Sethi, Mr. Goyal, Ms Rao,
I don't understand how it is a repeated query. Have you understood the query and replied in past, then where is that query and your answer?
If you really understood my question, then please reply.
Akhilesh Kumar (Expert) 16 November 2013
Dear Mr. Kumar, An appeal is not maintainable against the order and decree passed in section 6 of the SR Act. There are cantena of Judgments one of them Ashok Nagar Welfare Association & ors vs R.K. Sharma & Ors
prabhakar singh (Expert) 16 November 2013
Yes!No appeal would lie is correct position of law.If your query is not repeated then the same topic might have been dealt in recent past.
A Kumar (Querist) 17 November 2013
Dear Mr. Akhileshji,
Thanks for reply. In Judgments of (1) Ashok Nagar Welfare Association & ors vs R.K. Sharma & Ors , (2) Vinita, (3) Khairunnissa (reported in AIR April 2013), the suit is decreed. But in my case, suit is pending and receiver is appointed in favour of plaintiff.requested to give me any judgement which is with regard to pending suit under sec. 6 of S.R. Act and receiver is appointed which is set aside.

Dear Mr. Prabhakarji,
thanks. But It is to be kept in mind that receiver is under XL and appeal against appointment of Receiver is mainatainable under O- 43 rule 1 (s) which I have contested but court is in not in my side in the sense that there is bar under section 6(3) of S.R. Act. requested to re-undestand my position as a defendant and re-check the law.
Akhilesh Kumar (Expert) 20 November 2013
Mr Kumar, The Order passed for the appointment of receiver is considered as an order now come to the act which says

"6(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed". what you have interpreted of the word "any"
A Kumar (Querist) 20 November 2013
Dear Mr. Akhileshji,
thanks, according to me, word "Any" may be with regard to order regarding execution of decreee or like other things passed after the suit is over. But in my case, suit is pending in District court. I need any judgments in my favour/ against me to cite while arguments.
Akhilesh Kumar (Expert) 21 November 2013
Mr. Kumar,

Please see the definition of order

Defined u/s 2 (14) of the Civil Procedure Code. It means the formal expression of any decision of the Civil Court which is not a decree.

As per my little knowledge the starting point for an order need not always be a plaint, it may be an application or petition. Though being a formal expression, it follows that an order need not conclusively determine the rights of parties on any matter in dispute. Therefore, in your pending case the order passed for appointment of receiver by the court covered in this section, and for the identical judgement you have to search it and if found please share me also.
Thanking you.
A Kumar (Querist) 23 November 2013
Dear Mr. Prabhakar Singh,
As per your suggestion, I found similar querry at experts/Appeal-against-appointment-of-receiver-in-section-6-of-specific-relief-act-1963-429931.asp wherein your expert opinion appears to be with me but in my query it is against me. requested to re-frame your opinion. Thanks a lot for information.

Dear Mr. Akhileshji,

Thanks, Your depth of knowledge is appreciated and it appears that you have understood my query fully. I understand that opinion given six days ago by your as well as of Mr. Prabhakar Singh is right. however from the above old query, I understand the querist could not trace out any judgment against me. If any body can find straight judgments whether in my favour or disfavour, please furnish the same from academic point of view also.

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query