The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday May 20 1907

Where the order for the appointment of a Receiver was made by a Subordinate Judge subject to the sanction of the District Judge and before such sanction the Receiver brought a suit for rent held that the nomination being subsequently approved by the District Judge the requirements of the law were substantially complied with and the suit was not bad. [...] Where the Judge in giving charge to the jury did not call the att^tion of the jury to the fact of the original witnesses having been abandoned by the prosecution of two of them having given evdence for the defence and of the witnesses examined in Court for the prosecution being entirely new witnesses held that there was sufficient misdirection in the charge so as to justify the setting aside [...] The schedule to the deed showed that on the basis of this calculation the whole of the mortgage debt would he satisfied in the course of the year 1315 and the mortgagee undertook to restore the property at the end of that year to the mortgagors together with a sum of Rs. [...] The result of the sale was that the purchaser took the property free from all encumbrances including the usufructuary mortgage of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff lost possession of the share of which he was in occupation. [...] The High Court allowed the Plaintiff to amend the plaint and to make it a suit for the recovery of whatever is due upon the whole mortgage out of the surplus proceeds of the revenue sale.