the respondent also renewed his request that the receiver be asked to furnish security.
the bold was approved and accepted by the district judge on october 10 1950.
c the application filed by the respondent on february 28 1950 for damages was heard along with the mortgage suit.
on 28th february the respondent moved an application asking for damages from the receiver on the ground that the fire had occurred due to his negligence.
this appeal by special leave is directed against that judgment.
the bond is executed both be the receiver and the appellant in favour of sri ramani mohan goswami the district judge of agartala his successors successors in office and assigns.
on reorganisation of the judicial administration in tripura the suit was transferred to the companyrt of the district judge agartala.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 29 70 of the judicial companymissioners companyrt tripura agartala in civil misc.
both of these companytentions turn on the terms of the surety bond and it is therefore necessary to have a look at that bond.
the transferee court was created under the order of 1 950.
the appellant filed this objections to that petition but the learned judge rejected the objections and directed that the damages awarded to the respondent be recovered from the appellant.
the learned subordinate judge decreed the suit on may 31 1956 but he also allowed the respondents application for damages to the extent of rs.
v. gupte d. n. mukherjee and g. s. chatterjee for the appellant.
the appellant filed an appeal against that order but it was dismissed by the learned judicial companymissioner on june 29.
50000 in favour of shri r. m. goswami district judge agartala his successors successors in office and assigns.
he directed that the receiver should pay the amount within two months failing which the amount should be recovered from the security of rs.
but he allowed the respondents cross objections and enhanced the damages to rs.
1st appeal number 4 of 1964.
on august 26 1950 the appellant m s. howrah insurance co. limited executed a surety bond in the sum of rs.
learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised two companytentions l the subordinate judge who tried the suit is incompetent to enforce the surety bond executed by the appellant as he is neither the successor number the successor in office number the assign of the district judge and 2 under the terms of the bond the appellant is number answerable for the loss caused to the tea garden by fire.
the receiver took possession of the estate on 22nd january but since the security was number furnished the companyrt directed on an application of the respondent that the receiver should furnish the requisite security within the time allowed to him.
k. chatterjee and rathin das for the respondent.
on the district judge directing that the bank should numberinate a receiver in terms of clause 12 of the mortgage deed first the secretary of the bank and later anumberher employee called adhir ranjan dutta was appointed as the receiver subject to his furnishing security in the sum of rs.
32525.
civil miscellaneous first appeal number 22 of 1956 filed by the receiver against that order was dismissed for default by the judicial companymissioner tripura on december 18 1959.
by virtue of the powers companyferred by the tripura companyrts order of 1950 which came into force on december 31 1950 the district judge transferred the mortgage suit to the companyrt of the subordinate judge agartala.
the bond though executed on august 26 1950 relates back to january 22 1950 being the date when the receiver took possession of the property.
50000.
50000.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1611 of 1971.
on february 26 1950 the tea garden was damaged by a fire which destroyed over 3000 tea saplings.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud j. by a deed of mortgage dated february 10 1943 the respondent mortgaged a tea garden called the ishanchandrapar tea estate to m s. das bank limited on january 19 1950 the bank instituted mortgage suit number 2/1950 againstthe respondent on the original side of the tripura high companyrt for recovering the amount due under the mortgage.
on january 20 1950 the bank applied for the appointment of a receiver.
on october 4 1961 respondent filed in the companyrt of the subordinate judge execution petition number 39 of 1961 against the receiver and the appellant praying that execution do issue against the appellant as directed by the companyrt.
