Back
K. MANMADHA RAO
Movva Venkateswara Rao (died) by LRs. – Appellant
Versus
M. Subba Rao (died) by LRs. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the original suit and motion for managing property. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by counsel on property management. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's directive for re-evaluation of case in trial court. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final disposition of the appeal and directive on pending applications. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
(K. Manmadha Rao, J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 17.08.2018 in I.A.No.2064 of 2017 in O.S.No.306 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District.
2. Originally the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.306 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, (for short "the trial Court") to appoint a receiver to take possession of the suit schedule properties item No.1 to 4 and manage the same and deposit the sale proceeds of the yielding crop into count and income in item No.1 to 4 for which to preserve the suit properties and also the properties are not wasted or mismanaged.
3. During pendency of the above suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.2064 of 2017 before the trial Court, seeking to appoint a receiver to take possession of suit schedule properties i.e., items 1 to 4
The appointment of a Receiver requires a prima facie case, emergent circumstances, and cannot violate lawful possession rights, which were not established in this case.
Appointment of Receiver – Court would not appoint Receiver until and unless there are certain compelling reasons.
The appointment of a receiver requires clear evidence of mismanagement and an element of urgency, which was not established in this case.
Appointment of a receiver requires a judicious exercise of discretion; failure to adhere to procedural fairness resulted in setting aside the trial court's order.
The court clarified that a receiver can only be appointed if there is a prima facie case, immediate danger, and it does not deprive the defendant of possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the City Civil Court had no authority in law to entertain an application in a disposed of suit against which an appeal had already been pendin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
