1. The plaintiff appellant has come up against an order by which her prayer to appoint receiver has been rejected on a technical ground that the trial of the suit had already been stayed earlier by an order dated 3-2-1981.

2. Since the application of the appellant has been rejected on a technical ground, it is not necessary to setforth the merits of the claim of the respective parties.

3. It appears that the plaintiff claimed eight annas share in the properties of the suit asserting her to be daughter of Lakshman Mandal alias Lakshman Sao to which the properties belonged. It further appears that the defendant No. 1 alleged in a probate proceeding (Probate Case No. 16 of 1968) earlier that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Lakshman Mandal aforesaid and asserted title on the basis of an alleged Will said to have been executed by Lakshman Mandal. In the aforesaid probate case it was held that Lakshmi Devi is the daughter of Lakshman Sah and that the alleged Will is not genuine and not last testament of Lakshman Sah. It appears that an appeal being First Appeal No. 19 of 1976 is pending before this Court against adjudication in the Probate case. It also appears that on an ap