K.V. Jagannatha Rao vs The Maharajah

Varadachariar, J.—This is an application by a judgment-debtor, in respect of whose property a receiver has been appointed in execution,

praying that the receiver might be directed to pay the petitioner a certain sum of money for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to conduct his

appeal to the Privy Council. The application has been made to this Court because a similar application to the Government Agent at Cocanada was

dismissed on 15th February, 1935, on the ground that the learned Agent could not vary an order passed by his predecessor on 23rd August,

1932, and that the application should be made to the High Court. Whatever difficulties of procedure there may be as to whether the present

application is to be regarded as an application to this Court as the authority which continued the receiver or as one necessitated by the agent''s

order dated 15th February, 1935, we think that in the interests of justice we may, while dismissing this petition, point out to the learned Agent that

the proper course for him, is to deal with the application on the merits, in the light of the circumstances alleged in the petition and that he is not

precluded from doing so by the prior order of 23rd August, 1932. As the receiver was appointed by the Agent and the High Court merely

dismissed an appeal against that order, it is the Agent who is the proper authority to give directions to the receiver and not this Court. The prior

order of 23rd August, 1932, did not dismiss the application after a consideration of the circumstances alleged, but on the assumption that on the

appointment of a receiver the proceeds realised by the receiver should be applied only in discharge of the decree. The learned Advocate-General

maintains before us that that is the correct position. We are unable to agree. A receiver appointed in execution is, quite as much as a receiver

appointed in the suit, an officer of the Court and holds moneys collected by him subject to the orders of the Court. It is not correct to view all

moneys in his hands as necessarily appropriated towards satisfaction of the decree. The Court has got the power to give directions to him in

respect of the disbursement of the moneys and in proper circumstances such directions may also be for the benefit of the judgment-debtor See

(1925) ILR 47 385 (Privy Council) . With these remarks we must dismiss the present application and leave it to the petitioner to move the

Government Agent in the matter. As the grounds stated in the order of 15th February, 1935, made it necessary for the petitioner to come to this

Court, we propose to make no order as to costs in this application.