Alugadda Siddeshwar Gupta vs Smt. Kandoor Bhanurekha
2024 Latest Caselaw 2840 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2840 Tel
Judgement Date : 25 July, 2024

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

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

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

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