Ajit Singh And Anr. vs Yamuna Devi And Anr. on 24 July, 1952
8. As against these cases, we may refer to one case on the other side, namely, -- 'Fateh Chand v. Amar Nath', AIR 1933 Lah 216. In that case the receiver asked for directions with respect to certain properties and he was directed by the Court to restore certain properties to a certain person. There was then an appeal in the Lahore High Court, and the question arose whether an appeal lay from this order. The argument on behalf of the appellant was that the appeal lay under Order 43, Rule 1(s), read with Order 40, Rule 1(d). The learned Judge, however, pointed out that Order 40, Rule 1(d) dealt with the powers to be conferred on a receiver, and that in the case before him the Court did not purport to confer any power on the receiver. An order like the one before him, in which the Court merely directed the receiver to take particular action, did not amount to conferment of power on the receiver, and was, therefore, held not appealable.