The court emphasized the necessity for valid grounds and evidence when appointing a receiver under CPC rules, stressing careful discretion.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2024 This appeal is filed challenging the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, appointing a receiver to assume charge of properties involved in a pending partition suit.

2. Appellants and respondents are relatives. O.S.No.670 of 1993 was filed seeking partitioning of certain properties scheduled therein. Item No.1 of plaint B schedule is a property having an extent of 3¼ acres in which the tharavad house is situated. I.A.No.7 of 2024 was filed alleging that defendant No.9 along with other defendants has trespassed into the house and is conducting a homoeo clinic therein without paying rent. Other deleterious activities to the property like cutting and removing trees, unilateral appropriation of income, refusal to share profits etc. were also alleged in the I.A. The partition suit was filed in the year 1993. A preliminary decree had been passed which was challenged before this Court and was partly set aside and the suit remanded for fresh consideration. A special leave petition had been moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the finding of this Court with respect to item No.1 in plaint B schedule had been confirmed therein. Item Nos.2 to 6 are pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is in the meanwhile that the above I.A. seeking appointment of a receiver had been filed. The learned Subordinate Court heard the parties on the I.A. and vide order dated 26.11.2024 appointed a party receiver. The said order is challenged in this appeal.

3. A Caveat O.P. had been filed and respondent Nos.1 to 6 entered appearance through counsel.

4. Heard Sri.Balakrishna Iyer, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.P.B.Subramanyan, Advocate, for the appellants and Sri.Harish V.V., Advocate for respondents 1 to 6. It is submitted that the other respondents are sailing along with respondents 1 to 6 as regards this appeal.

5. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the impugned order had been rendered by the Sub Court, overlooking the specific mandates to be complied with while appointing a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. Since the act of appointing a receiver in effect deprives a person of the possession, control and management of the property over which he has a right and interest, it needs to be done with great circumspection and care. The Sub Court proceeded to base its decision solely on the averments stated in the I.A. The said course adopted is incorrect. Though it was noted by the Sub Court that the veracity of the allegation that defendant No.9 was in possession of the property and was running a homoeo clinic therefrom along with his daughter could be ascertained only by appointment of a commission, the Sub Court nevertheless proceeded to appoint a receiver without waiting for any confirmation of the said fact. Further, as regards the allegation that respondents were appropriating for themselves the profit from the property, the Sub Court found it against them on the premise that the respondents had no case that they were not receiving the income. Though the Sub Court concluded that a harsh step is required, the order lacks sufficient explanation or any valid reasoning as to the factors that led the learned Judge to arrive at the said conclusion. There has been a total non- compliance of the ‘panch sadachaar’ to be complied with while appointing a receiver as laid down in T.Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C.Thangavelu Chetty and others [ AIR1955 Mad 430 ], submits the learned Senior Counsel.

6. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6, Sri.V.V.Harish, the learned counsel, vehemently submitted that the order had been validly rendered and the learned Judge had specifically stated that a harsh remedy is required in the facts and circumstances for the purpose of preserving the property and protecting the rights of the plaintiff in the suit. The learned counsel submits that the mandates to be complied with while considering an application under Order XL, Ru