##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ----

M.A. No.452 of 2026 ----

Harjit Singh, son of late Nehal Singh, aged about 67 years, resident of B-501, Shahdeo Tower, Pee Pee Compound, PO and PS Hindpiri, District Ranchi 834001…. .... Appellant -- Versus --

Birendra Pal Singh, son of late Nehal Singh, resident of Flat No.504B, Bansal Plaza Apartment, Station Road, PO and PS Chutia, District Ranchi 834001 ….. .... Respondent ----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ---

For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate For the Respondent :- Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate ----

2/27.08.2026 Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Shivani Jaluka, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.

2. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the counter affidavit has already been served upon the learned counsel for the appellant, however, the same has not been filed in the Registry as the matter was on Board.

3. In view of his such submission, the said counter affidavit is taken on record.

4. This application has been preferred by the appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1(s) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved with the order dated 22.05.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division XV), Ranchi, in O.S. No.780 of 2024 whereby he has been pleased to allow the application filed by the respondent under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appointment of receiver.

5. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondent /plaintiff has filed the O.S. No.780 of 2024 for partition of the property situated at Mouza Siram, Thana No.210, PS Chutia, District Ranchi, Khata No.50, Plot No.882 and 883 admeasuring an area of 6 kathas along with the multi-storied commercial building/ business standing thereon. He next submits that the appellant/defendant appeared in the said suit and filed written statement as well as the counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6(A) of the C.P.C by way of Annexure -2 and Annexure -3 respectively.

6. He next submits that in the aforesaid background, respondent /plaintiff has filed application under Order XL Rule 1 CPC for appointment of receiver of the suit property and the business running thereon for management, protection and preservation of the entire hotel business and collection of the profits and keeping the accounts thereof. The said application is annexed as Annexure-4 in the memo of appeal. He next submits that the suit land was purchased by the appellant, however, the respondent/plaintiff was only name lender and the entire consideration amount was also paid by the appellant. He next submits that the appellant merely allowed the name of the respondent/plaintiff in both the sale deeds. He submits that the appellant in the year 2007-08 has decided to develop the said land and since the respondent was merely a name lender and allowed the appellant to develop the land at his own cost and to his exclusive right. He further submits that there was understanding between the appellant and the respondent that the respondent has no right in the suit property and the entire consideration amount was paid by the appellant and the appellant has developed the multi-storied B+G+4 Commercial building on the said land at his own cost and started a proprietorship business in the name of M/s Hotel Swarn of which the appellant is the sole proprietor. Mr. Sinha, the learned Senior counsel further submits that the appellant is running the said business and with a wrong intention the respondent/plaintiff trying to assert the right over the said business and the suit was instituted by the plaintiff/ respondent. He next submits that the registration certificate issued under the GST A