Telangana High Court
Alugadda Siddeshwar Gupta vs Smt. Kandoor Bhanurekha on 25 July, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.112 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.S.Syamsunder Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Aadesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.
2. The present is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal which has been filed under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C) assailing the order dated 11.01.2024, passed in I.A.No.270 of 2022, in O.S.No.338 of 2022, by the VI Additional District and Sessions, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally (for short 'the court below').
3. Vide the said impugned order, the court below has allowed a petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 40 Rule 1, read with Section 151 of C.P.C., for appointment of advocate receiver.
4. The suit is a suit for partition i.e., O.S.No.338 of 2022, filed by the sister against the other siblings in the family 2 PSK,J & SSRN,J C.M.A.NO.112 of 2024 seeking a share in the suit schedule property under the Hindu Succession Act.
5. In the midst of the proceedings, it was the present petition which was filed for appointment of an advocate receiver. The ground raised was that pending the suit or even before that the respondent/defendants have been alienating the property which could be much to the detriment to the petitioner/plaintiff.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, the appellant in the present appeal contends that the order passed by the court below under the challenge herein is one which is contrary to the circular issued by the High Court as also is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Civil Rules of Practice.
7. According to the learned counsel, the said order is not sustainable for the reason that the court below ought to had marked the relevant documents while proceeding to decide the I.A. In the absence of proper marking of the documents, the order stands vitiated. Secondly, it was contended that the plaintiff while filing the suit have not made any claim for 3 PSK,J & SSRN,J C.M.A.NO.112 of 2024 mense profit and in the absence of any claim for a mense profit, again there is no necessity of appointment of advocate receiver.
8. However, perusal of the records would show that the court below while passing the impugned order had infact marked all these documents relied upon by the plaintiff as also by the appellant/respondents. The only discrepancy seems to be that these markings does not reflect in the annexure affixed along with the I.A. and the pleadings.
9. We are of the considered opinion that only because of the said minor discrepancy, the order cannot be held to have been vitiated. Moreover, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the operative part of the impugned order which for ready reference reproduced herein under:
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs appointing Sri.M.Satyanand, Advocate is appointed as receiver to inspect the petition schedule properties, note down the condition and the status of the properties, the details of the tenants and the rents collected for the properties and the profits derived from the properties and 4 PSK,J & SSRN,J C.M.A.NO.112 of 2024 maintain the monthly accounts of the property and to collect 1/4th of the monthly rents and profits of the properties from the respondent No.1 and deposit the same before the court to the credit of the suit. The advocate receiver fees shall be Rs.1,500/- p.m. payable to the receiver directly by the respondent No.1. The Advocate receiver shall file a report bimonthly before the court.
10. A plain reading of the contents of the operative part of the impugned order would clearly reflect that the order is one which is more in the nature of precautionary order. Taking into consideration the interest of all the parties and also keeping in view the fact that when the suit is finally decided, neither of the parties should be put at loss.
11. On being repeatedly asked from the counsel for the appellant as to what prejudice is going to be caused from the impugned order, he was not in a position to give a convincing reply as to the nature of prejudice that is likely to occur. Rather what appears is that the interest of the appellant also stands equally protected from the impugned order which he can avail in the event if the suit being finally decided in his favour.
5
PSK,J & SSRN,J C.M.A.NO.112 of 2024
12. For the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any strong case made out calling for interference to the impugned order. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ____________________________ SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J Date: 25.07.2024 AQS