S. Saleema Bi Vs. S. Pyari Begum and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2066 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 11820 of 1999)
Petitioner: S. Saleema Bi
Respondent: S. Pyari Begum and Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2066 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 11820 of 1999)
Judges: V.N. KHARE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 13, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAWS
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 41 Rule 1 – Receiver – Appointment – Suit for partition – Defendant in physical possession – High Court not considering if it was just and convenient and holding that plaintiff had prima facie case and appointing receiver. Held appointment of receiv-er by High Court was unjustified.(Para 3)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 41 Rule 1 – Receiver – Appointment – Suit for partition – Defendant in physical possession – High Court not considering if it was just and convenient and holding that plaintiff had prima facie case and appointing receiver. Held appointment of receiv-er by High Court was unjustified.(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant herein was defendant in a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent for partition of the property. In the said suit, the Plaintiff-Respondent made an application for appoint-ment of a Receiver in respect of the property in dispute. The trial court rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the Plain-tiff-Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and appointed a Receiver in respect of the property in dispute. It is against the said order the defendant is in appeal before us.
3. We have heard learned counsel and perused the judgment. We find that the defendant is in physical possession of the proper-ty in dispute. The Receiver can only be appointed when it is just and convenient and also when there is a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent and the case calls for taking of urgent measure like appointment of a Receiver. The High Court has not gone into these questions while appointing Receiver for the property in dispute. We, therefore, find that the appointment of the Receiver was not legally justified. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court.
4. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the hearing of the suit may be expedited.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant herein was defendant in a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent for partition of the property. In the said suit, the Plaintiff-Respondent made an application for appoint-ment of a Receiver in respect of the property in dispute. The trial court rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the Plain-tiff-Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and appointed a Receiver in respect of the property in dispute. It is against the said order the defendant is in appeal before us.
3. We have heard learned counsel and perused the judgment. We find that the defendant is in physical possession of the proper-ty in dispute. The Receiver can only be appointed when it is just and convenient and also when there is a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent and the case calls for taking of urgent measure like appointment of a Receiver. The High Court has not gone into these questions while appointing Receiver for the property in dispute. We, therefore, find that the appointment of the Receiver was not legally justified. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court.
4. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the hearing of the suit may be expedited.
