IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.218 of 2009 1. Nirmala Jaiswal, d/o Late Jwala Prasad Choudhary, w/o Sri Suresh Prasad @ Suresh Chandra Jaiswal, r/o mohalla Gai Ghat, South Gali, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S. Alamganj, District- Patna. 2. Shakuntala Gupta, d/o Late Jwala Prasad Choudhary, and w/o Mohan Prasad Gupta, r/o- Mohalla A.G. Colony, Near Janki Steel Works, P.O. + P.S. Argora Kadru, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). ----- Counter plaintiffs --- Defendant nos. 5 & 6 --- Appellants -:Versus:- 1. Sri Nirala Choudhary, s/o-Late Jwala Prasad Choudhary, r/o Machcharhatta, P.O. Maharaj Ghat, P.S. Khajekalan, Patna City, District-Patna. ------ Plaintiff ---- Opposite party 1st Set 2. Smt. Sarita Choudhary, w/o Late Shiwala Choudhary. 3. Rohit Kumar, minor son of Late Shiwala Choudhary under Guardianship of his mother and legal Guardianship of his Mother Sarita Choudhary. 4. Neha Kumari, minor daughter of Lae Shiwala Choudhary under the Guardianship of her mother and legal Guardianship of Sarita Choudhary. 5. Viashal Choudhary, s/o Late Jawala Prasad Choudhary. ----- Defendant nos. 1 to 4 --- Opposite parties 2nd set. ---------- 2 28.4.2009 Heard counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondent no.1, the plaintiff-opposite party 1st set. In the opinion of this Court, the court below while rejecting the prayer of the defendants-appellants under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not committed any illegality so as to be interfered by this Court. This Court has gone into the whole aspect of the matter by looking into not only 2 the pleadings available on record but also by taking into account that here was a partition suit in which the married daughters initially not being impleaded had intervened and after their intervention when they were impleaded as defendants to the suit for protecting their 1/5th share in the suit property, they came out with an application for appointment of receiver. All that was said in this application was that whereas the defendant nos. 1 to 4, the opposite parties 2nd set were drawing a huge amount of Rs. 96,000/- per month by way of rent, the condition of the defendants- appellants was pitiable and therefore, the poverty was made the only ground for appointment of receiver. It is not in doubt that the appellants had neither taken a plea nor had tried to ever explain that there was any danger of the suit property much less it is being mismanaged or misappropriated. The requirement of appointment of receiver particularly in the matter of partition suit would only arise when there is a direct threat to the suit property either it is being wasted 3 or damaged or there is allegation of misappropriation of the suit property. Merely because one of the coparcener is receiving payment of rent to the exclusion of the right on others which would put others into some sort of financial discomfort, cannot be a ground for appointment of receiver. The appellants, the married daughters, in fact had not brought the suit on this ground and in fact they only intervened for being added as defendants claiming 1/5th share when plaintiff-respondent no.1 had filed such a suit. Therefore, this Court also would not believe the story of alleged poverty, which even otherwise, cannot have a ground for appointment of receiver. There is however no difficulty in at least observing that initially the plaintiff- opposite party no.1 had filed his suit claiming 1/3rd share in which the rent of the premises was not even made subject matter of the suit. Later on, by an amendment in the plaint, the entire rental income also has been made part of the suit and in fact, such refusal of amendment in the plaint was struck 4 down by this Court by an order dated 28.8.2008. Counsel, therefore, agreed that now when the entire rental property also is part and parcel of the suit, an issue in course of adjudication and preparation of preliminary decree in the partition suit, will also be framed on rental income. In such a situation, the apprehension of the appellants that they would be permanently denuded or deprived of the income from the suit property, does not seems to be correct and the same at least cannot be made a ground for appointment of receiver. In view of the fact that all the parties have already filed their written statement and the issue in the suit are confined to partition, this Court would find that the ends of justice would be better served if the suit itself is decided expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to take expeditious steps for disposal of the suit to ensure that the same is disposed within the aforesaid period of one year, in 5 fact, would solve all the problems of all the parties for once and ever. That being so, this appeal, subject to the aforesaid observations and direction, is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)