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.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram in I.A.No.1002 of 2023 in O.S.No.7 of 2023, whereby the appointment of a Receiver for management of the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the main suit was allowed.

-

2. The appellant is the respondent No.1/defendant No.4 before the Trial Court. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 before the Trial Court who preferred the said application under Order XL Rule 1 of C.P.C. to appoint a Receiver/advocate commissioner to manage the suit schedule properties.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The case of the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3, in the application before the Trial Court, is that:

The plaint schedule property is a commercial building comprising shops and a Kalyana Mandapam known as ’Balusu Kalyana Mandapam’ located on the main road of Ramachandrapuram. The petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 having 1/9^th share each in the said commercial building by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 11.06.1998 and 12.06.1998. It is alleged that respondent No.1/defendant No.4 has leased out the shops to third parties on a temporary basis and has been exclusively enjoying the rental income, without accounting for or distributing the petitioners’ rightful shares. Hence, the petitioners have sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner/Receiver for the proper management and administration of the said property.

-

5. None of the respondents contested before the Trial Court to oppose the said application. During the course of enquiry, none were examined and no documents were exhibited on either side.

6. On the material, the Trial Court, having come to the conclusion that there is necessity to appoint an advocate as Receiver for management of plaint schedule property in order to collect the rents in proper manner and to deposit the same into the court, thereby, appointed an Advocate as Receiver for management of plaint schedule property till the disposal of main suit in-order to collect Rents and to attend required repairs and to pay required tax to the concerned authorities by maintaining accounts from time to time and to remit the amounts into the account of the suit by filing proper accounts from time to time.

-

7. It is against the said order; the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant No.4.

8. Heard Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.4 and Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendant Nos.1 to 3.

9. Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.4, vehemently contends that defendant Nos.1 to 3 failed to establish a prima facie case before the Trial Court to warrant the relief sought in the said application. He submits that the appointment of a Receiver cannot be made as a matter of routine and must be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submits that defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not satisfy the essential conditions required for such relief, as laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chelikam Rajamma v. Padileti Venkataswami Reddy , 1993 (2) ALT 154 (DB) .

-

10. He also submits that the Trial Court failed to provide adequate opportunity to defendant No.4 to substantiate his case and disposed of the application in a hasty manner without due consideration of the material available on record. Accordingly, he prays to