Banashree Neogy & Anr vs Soma Ghosh & Ors

Shivakant Prasad, J

The Court : This matter has appeared today under the heading "To be Mentioned" at the instance of Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the Commissioner of Kolkata Police. He has invited Court's attention to an order passed on 5th August, 2019 which appears to have been passed by this Court under wrong impression of the order dated 18th June, 2019 while directing the Commissioner of Kolkata Police to take full control over the entire suit premises both Garage and Building, and make proper inspection and submit report to this Court by giving liberty to the Kolkata Police / local Police Station to take every action against trespassers and illegal activities in Garage and Building as and when basis, in extremity allowing the police authorities to remove or arrest trespassers/unauthorized persons in the suit premises.

The petitioner had prayed for removal of the erstwhile Receiver with certain prayers made in the application as reflected from the order dated 5th August, 2019 so this Court feels that misunderstanding the said order and without giving opportunity to others this Court passed directing the Commissioner, Kolkata Police to take full control over the suit property, which order should not be allowed to stand in a suit for partition in my considered opinion ergo, the order requires modification.

Since the petitioner had prayed for appointment of receiver over the suit property for its preservation in all respects on which earlier Receiver was appointed, as would appear from the erstwhile orders, Ms. Smita Das Dey, learned Advocate was appointed Receiver, but now she is not willing to act as such for her personal inconvenience.

It appears from the order dated 11th November, 2016 that since defendant No. 3, since deceased, was collecting the rent of the car parking space located in the said property illegally and enjoying the same to the prejudice of other parties to the suit and no legal heirs were substituted upon his death and finally as the said the defendant No. 4(i) and 4(ii) and from the side of Mr. Sailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate as a Guardian ad-litem appointed for the deity and the defendant No. 5 have not raised any objection, Mr. Vikash Baisya, Advocate was appointed Receiver over the suit property involved in CS No. 41 of 1989 to take charge of the management of the property and maintain statement of accounts from the date of the order and further, parties were directed to co-operate with the Receiver to open one bank account in any Nationalized Bank for depositing the income from the property and for direction to make payment of remuneration to Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate appointed as Guardian ad-litem of the deity. Accordingly, necessary directions were passed. Further orders reveal that Mr. Vikash Baisya, learned Advocate Receiver has sought for his discharge on account of unnecessary allegation leveled against him by the plaintiff No. 1 Banasree Neogi and accordingly, by an order dated 18th June, 2019 Mr. Vikash Baisya, learned Advocate Receiver was discharged who was directed to hand over all relevant documents and to assist new Receiver in relation to the bank account, that has been opened by him for management of the property. Thereafter, in his place Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate was appointed

Receiver on the same terms but, Ms. Smita Das De, learned Advocate has now sought for her discharge from duty of Receivership for her personal inconvenience.

In the context above, upon hearing learned Counsel for both parties, Mrs. Chandreyi Alam, learned Advocate be and is appointed Receiver in respect of the suit property on the same term as Mr. Baisya Advocate was appointed who will take over the control of the suit property forthwith and will act in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court and if required, the learned Receiver shall be at liberty to take all assistance from the Commissioner of Kolkata Police and so also from local Police Station for the purpose of protection and preservation of the suit property till disposal of the suit. In the event any action is required to be taken as against the trespassers or against the persons conducting any illegal activities in Garage and Building as and when basis the Receiver will take steps in terms of the modalities set by this Court for recovery of fund since 1989 as necessary. Since Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate was appointed by order of this Court, on the seeking of the plaintiff is appointment Guardian-ad-litem by order of this Court, merely seeking removal of the said Guardian-ad-litem by the plaintiff cannot be countenanced as he has already filed written statement on behalf of the deity defendant.

Mr. Chandreyi Alam, learned Advocate Receiver shall be entitled to remuneration of Rs.25,000/- per month which shall be borne by the parties to the suit in equal proportion.

Let GA No. 3239 of 2016 be listed on 26th August, 2019.

Let it be so recorded that Ms. Banasree Neogi, the plaintiff No. 1 has sent to the Central Project Coordinator her grievances through email dated 19th August, 2019 and email dated 16th August, 2019, which be kept on the record.

Parties are directed to see to it that the suit is taken on trial as expeditiously as possible.

Photostat copy this order, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities be supplied.