SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Ori) 691

P.K.TRIPATHY
SALMA MAJHI – Appellant
Versus
BIJA MAJHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Nayak, MANOJ MISHRA, S.MOHANTY, S.R.PRADHAN

P. K. TRIPATHY, J.

( 1 )

( 2 ) IN this application under Order 40, rule 1, C. P. C. , plaintiff-appellants pray for appointment of receiver of the suit land measuring an area of Ac. 7. 91 decimals.

( 3 ) ON a bare reading of the provision in o. 40, R. 1, C. P. C. , it is clear that the matter relating to appointment of receiver is purely at the discretion of the Court. It is the well accepted principle that such discretion should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances, available to it, a Court shall consider whether it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver for the subject-matter of dispute. In that context, it is to be considered, if the party applying for appointment of receiver has an excellent chance of success in the suit, there is danger to the suit property being wasted or mismanaged or the disputed property remains uncared for being in medio (sic) and that the person applying for the appointment of receiver has a better claim over the subject-matter of dispute than the person who is in wrongful possession of the same. All such requirements to the extent of availability and applicability are to be considered with due



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top