After numberice to the appellant, the learned single Judge companyfirmed that Order on 7 2 1992.
1 against the appellant Amal KumarGhatakon 14 3 1986.
3 for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement made between the appellant and respondent No.
A money decree was passed by the Calcutta High Court in favour of the United Bank of India, Respondent No.
in the Calcutta High Court.
That suit is still pending.
The grievance made on behalf of the appellant is that the property in respect of which the receiver has been appointed was number the subject matter of the suit in which the money decree being executed was passed wherein the impugned Orders dated 1 3 1991 and 7 2 1992 by the learned single Judge and the Order dated 15 9 1992 by the Division Bench were made.
3 against the appellant.
It appears that an agreement was entered into between the appellant Amal Kumar Ghatak and respondent No.
3 Ms. S.N. Enterprises Pvt.
Leave granted.
Heard on merits.
3 has obtained from the High Court Orders which relate to delivery of possession of the property which was outside the scope of the money suit, apart from being actually the subject matter of the pending suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.
3, in addition to investing companysiderable amount of money in the property has also discharged to a great extent the liability of the appellant under the money decree to the bank.
Ltd. Respondent No.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that under the garb of seeking directions for execution of the money decree, respondent No.
Ltd., respondent No.
3, which had applied earlier for being added as a party even though the Order for its addition was made subsequently on 17 5 1991.
Other terms and companyditions are unnecessary for this appeal.
Ltd. according to which the decretal amount was to be paid in the manner agreed therein by respondent No.
An ex parte Order was made by the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court appointing a receiver on 1 3 1991, in respect of the disputed property, in the proceedings for execution of that decree at the instance of Ms. S.N. Enterprises Pvt.
These Orders have been challenged by special leave herein.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Division Bench which was dismissed by an Order dated 15 9 1992.
