IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.14 OF 2010 Date:09.02.2011 Between:- Narsing Gopamma and four others ..Appellants/Petitioners/Plaintiffs And Narsing Gopaiah and five others .. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is directed against the order, dated 15-12-2009, in I.A.No.783 of 2009 in O.S.No.82 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, whereunder and whereby, the petition under Order XL Rule 1 read with 151 C.P.C. for appointment of Receiver, was dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs contended that since part of the properties is being sold, to safeguard the interests of the parties, a Receiver could be appointed. The suit filed for partition is pending. The rights of parties and shares of all eligible claimants have not been determined and adjudicated where in a suit for partition, prima facie it is not shown that petitioners herein are entitled to a share or there is no material to show that the respondents are committing acts of waste or damages, appointment of receiver is not warranted. In appointing a receiver, the dominant object is to prevent the defeat of ends of justice. The Court is empowered to appoint a receiver if it comes to the conclusion that it is just and convenient. There is no allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the respondents/defendants are damaging the property or wasting the properties in question. In such circumstances, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. In the absence of any specific share, the contention of the appellants cannot be accepted. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 9th February, 2011 AMD