IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 FAO.No. 44 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2008 IN IA 3058/2007 IN OS.594/2006 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 & 5: --------------------------------- 1. P.P. SEBASTIAN @ DEVASSYKUTTY, S/O. PARAKKA KUNJI PYLOTH, BENNET ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU DESOM & VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. DR. JOSEPH PAUL @ OUSEPHACHAN, S/O. PARAKKA KUNJI PYLOTH, BENNET ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU DESOM & VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. THARIAIN PAUL @ THARUTH, S/O. PARAKKA KUNJI PYLOTH, RESIDING AT PARAKKA VEEDU, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL, GIRI NAAR, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, TALUK COCHIN. 4. GEORGE PAUL (WRONGLY SHOWN AS JOJO PAUL IN THE ORDER), S/O. PARAKKA KUNJI PYLOTH, PARAKKA VEEDU, BATHEL LANE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- 1. SAKHARIAH, SON OF PARAKKA KUNJI PYLOTH, RESIDING AT SANANA MISSION ROAD, CHEBUKKAVU DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. ANTONY PAUL @ ANTHONIACHAN, S/O. PARAKKA KUNJI PYLOTH, RESIDING AT PARAKKA ESTATE, EZHARUKUGHAM, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.HARISH ABRAHAM THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. 44 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal is against the order in I.A. 3058/2007 passed by the Sub Court, Thrissur. I.A.3058/2007 is an application for appointment of a receiver, filed by the first respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit. The court below, by the impugned order, allowed the petition against which the present appeal is preferred. 2. We issued notice and the respondents entered appearance through counsel. We have heard the argument of the Senior Counsel Sri. Krishnan Unni appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri. Sen, appearing for the respondents. In a matter, where an application is filed for appointment of a receiver, it is necessary that the court, after hearing both sides and going into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, pass a speaking order. We find that the impugned order was passed without adverting to the contentions raised by either parties. Hence the order does not show application of mind to the points raised. 3. In such circumstances, the order impugned is set aside and the FAO 44/2008 :2: matter is remitted to the court below so that the court below may pass a speaking order after adverting to the contentions raised. The appeal is allowed as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-