The appointment of a receiver without final adjudication requires clear duties; otherwise, it equates to a premature judgment.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(R) OF THE Code of Civil Procedure , SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2022, PASSED IN O.S. NO.55/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KOPPAL.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The defendants in O.S.No.55/2020 have preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal challenging the order dated 24.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.55/2020 filed under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to appoint receiver in respect of all the suit schedule properties on the file of Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Koppal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short).

3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs/respondents have filed suit for possession by claiming that they are owners of the suit schedule properties. There were many litigations previously, which went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now, the plaintiffs/respondents have filed suit for possession and are also seeking direction against the appellants/defendants to render accounts from 20.05.1994. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs/respondents have filed I.A.No.1/2021 under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, praying for appointment of receiver in respect of all the suit schedule properties to take possession, manage it and submit reports from time to time regarding income and expenditure of the suit schedule properties and etc, to the Court till disposal of the suit or till the receiver is directed to handover those properties to the persons named by the Court. The Trial Court has allowed the said I.A.No.1/2021.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of allowing I.A.No.1/2021 filed under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, the appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal.

6. Heard arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed on record submitted by both the sides at this stage during the course of the hearing.

7. The Trial Court in its considered order has dealt with many aspects and allowed I.A.No.1/2021 filed for appointment of receiver, but has not clarified what are the duties to be performed by the receiver. I.A.No.1/2021 is filed for appointment of receiver is to the effect that the receiver is to take possession and manage it, which is objected by the counsel for the appellants/defendants on the reason that when the suit filed is for possession and is pending adjudication, then ordering the appointment of receiver directing them to take possession is nothing but decreeing the suit itself without adjudication at the time of considering I.A.No.1/2021.

8. When the suit is filed for possession and for rendition of accounts, then whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled for possession or not is the subject matter of the suit. At this stage, this Court will not observe anything regarding the nature of possession held by the plaintiffs/respondents. By the very relief itself claimed in the suit, it appears that the plaintiffs/respondents are prima facie found to be out of possession over the suit schedule properties. Furthermore, the Trial Court has not clarified what are the duties and functions on the part of receiver, simply, the Trial Court has allowed I.A.No.1/2021 filed under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC.

9. Upon reading the application