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.

1. This appeal under O.43 R.1(q) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Code") is directed against the order dated 23rd March, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil Misc. case No. 69/2012 arising out of TS 48/2012 whereby and whereunder learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. disposed of the aforesaid Misc. Case 69/2012 appointing receiver and attaching the suit property before judgment relating to schedule 'A' to 'G' properties in the plaint by confirming its earlier order dated 12-3-2012 in respect of schedule 'A' to 'G' properties in the plaint.

2. Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants, who were the defendants in TS 48/2012 and OP in Civil Misc. 69/2012 arising out of the aforesaid suit (hereinafter referred to as "appellant - defendants") as well as Mr. N. Majumdar, learned counsel - for the sole respondent, who is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit and petitioner in the aforesaid Civil Misc. case (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff - respondent").

3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as under:
The plaintiff - respondent filed a suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as "Court below") for declaration and compensation amounting to Rs. 1,40,90,000/- and also for declaration and realization of the aforesaid amount and attachment of the property before judgment and appointment of receiver against the defendant - appellants, along with an interim prayer for attachment as per Schedule 'A, to 'G' of the plaint.

4. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the defendant - appellant No. 1 Sri. Pallab Bhattacharjee hatched a conspiracy against the plaintiff - respondent in collusion with the appellant - defendant Nos. 3 and 4 namely, Sri. Sunit Das and Sri. Bimalendu Chakraborty and taking lease of the 'A' Schedule land from the defendant - appellant Nos. 3 and 4 the defendant - appellant No. 1 illegally started construction of Bricks in the lease property hold in favour of the partnership firm, namely, M/s. Maa Saradadevi Industries, appellant - defendant No. 2, in which the plaintiff - respondent as well as the defendant - appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are partners.

5. Further case of the plaintiff - respondent in the aforesaid suit is that the defendant - appellant No. 4 instituted a suit for retention of the defendant - appellant No. 2 Maa Saradadevi Industries (hereinafter referred to as "partnership firm") and for dissolution thereof and the said suit was registered as TS 54/2010 which is pending before the aforesaid Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Court No. 2. The plaintiff - respondents also filed one counter claim under R.6(a) of O.8 of the Code before the same Court which was registered as RS 100 (CC) of 2010 in connection with TS 54 of 2010. While the aforesaid TS 54/2010 and counter claim (TS 100 (CC) of 2010) are pending before the, learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. the respondent - plaintiff filed the aforesaid TS 48 of 2012 for the relief, as stated supra, against the defendant - appellants herein.

6. Admittedly, on 17-11-2009, there was a settlement between the partners of the defendant - appellant No. 2 and the partnership firm (Annexure - 6 to the memo of appeal) that the plaintiff - respondent would retire from partnership on receipt of the said amount of Rs. 25 lakhs and he himself or his representative, who is the co - sharers of the building situated at old RMS Choumuhuni would transfer the share of the said building to the defendant - appellant Nos. 3 and 4 on or before 21st December, 2009 by a registered sale deed and thereafter he would retire from the partnership.

7. After fi