It was against this order that the petitioner appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court.
Hari Singh filed a suit against Sher Singh for dissolution of a partnership and rendition of accounts.
3098, Bahadurgarh Road, Delhi.
The learned Single Judge called for documentary evidence in support of the claim and on March 4, 1986 he made an order dismissing the application.
The application was rejected by the Trial Court, and a revision petition was filed by Hari Singh in the High Court.
As mentioned earlier the appeal was dismissed as incompetent on March 7, 1986.
The petitioner, who alleges that he took the shop on rent on March 1, 1985 from one Hukam Chand, a companylateral of Hari Singh, and that he had been in possession ever since in his own right, filed an application before the learned Single Judge objecting to the order dated November 26, 1985 and companytending that as a third person he was number liable to eviction.
In reply Sher Singh stated that he had surrendered possession of the shop to Hari Singh and that he was numberlonger in possession thereof.
On February 4, 1985 Hari Singh applied for amendment of the decree so that it would include the relief of possession of shop No.
He alleged that the shop was in possession of Sher Singh.
On November 26, 1985 the learned Single Judge ordered the appointment of a Receiver and directed the Receiver to take possession of the shop with the help of the police, if necessary, and to dispossess therefrom anyone in possession.
3098 had fallen to the share of Hari Singh while a minor portion belonged to Hukam Chand.
The question on the merits before the learned Single Judge was whether the petitioner was entitled to companytinue in possession of the shop.
As the petitioner claimed through Hukam Chand the learned Single Judge found that he bad numberright to assert possession against Hari Singh.
During the pendency of the revision petition Hari Singh made an application for an interim order for taking possession of, and sealing off, the said shop.
The suit was decreed on January 11, 1985 by the Trial Court and a money decree was passed in favour of Hari Singh.
The appeal was rejected on the ground that it was incompetent.
S. Pathak, J. The petitioner prays for special leave to appeal against an order dated March 7, 1986 of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing a first appeal against an order appointing a receiver passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court during the pendency of a revision petition before him.
