Firm Ashok Traders And Anr. Etc vs Gurumukh Das Saluja And Ors. Etc on 9 January, 2004
The Advocate Commissioner inspected suit
property and reported that respondent has cut down an anjilee tree from that
property a few days before his inspection. On I.A.No.392 of 2010 learned
WP(C) No.18303/2010
10
Munsiff passed an order of injunction restraining respondent from committing
waste in the suit property. Petitioners then filed I.A.No.547 of 2010 to appoint a
Receiver for the suit property. Learned Munsiff held that circumstances did not
warrant the harshest step of appointing a Receiver for the suit property and
declined to do so. Learned counsel for petitioners, placing reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Firm Ashok Traders and another v.
Gurumukh Das Saluja and others ((2004) 3 SCC 155(paragraph
No.15)) has contended that this is a fit case where a Receiver ought to be
appointed. Learned counsel contended that respondent has not even the
semblance of a right in the suit property as the document produced by
petitioners show that the Will is a forged document. Learned counsel has
referred me to the disputed Will and Ext.P3, a certificate dated 21.12.2009
issued by the Secretary of Karimannoor Service Co-operative Bank.