IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.204 of 2008 BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH VERSUS 1. SHARDA NAND SINGH, SON OF LATE RAJA SINGH 2. BABU NANDA SINGH, SON OF SHARDA NAND SINGH BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKARA, P.O. CHAKARA, P.S. & DISTRICT SIWAN …………. …….PLAINTIFF 1ST RESPONDENTS 3. SUBASH SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMAYAN SINGH 4. BRIDYA NAND SINGH, SON OF LATE RANJAN SINGH 5. BIRESH SINGH, SON OF HRIDAY SINGH …………… ……PLAINTIFF 2ND PATS. RESPONDENTS 6. SATYANDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMJI SINGH 7. JITENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMJI SINGH 8. MOST. MANKESHORA KUNWAR, WIFE OF LATE RAMJI SINGH ………. ………PLAINTIFF 3 PATS. RESPONDENTS 9. MOST. CHANDRA KESHARI DEVI, WIDOW OF RAMAYAN SINGH 10. SUDAMA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE RAMAYAN SINGH 11. SUNAINA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE RAMAYAN SINGH 12. ASHA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE RAMAYAN SINGH ….. ………..PLAINTIFFS 4 PATS. RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE APPELLANT :- MR. S.K.MAZUMDAR, SR. ADVOCATE MRS. MALLIKA MAZAUMDAR, ADVOCATE MR. SANAT KUMAR MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 & 4 :- MR. SHASHI SHEKHAR DWIVEDI, SR. ADVOCATE MR. RAVI SHANKAR DWIVEDI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 :- MR. RANJEET KUMAR, ADVOCATE MR. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE ********* 12 06.02.2009 Heard Counsel for the parties. With the consent of the parties, this appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. A suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff claiming that they have 1/4th share in the 2 property. The brothers of the plaintiffs and their heirs are the defendants in the suit. The appellants before this Court are the heirs of one of the brothers Late Ramji Singh. An application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for appointment of a receiver and the Court below has appointed one Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Advocate as receiver to one of the properties which is the agency of Hero Hondo motorcycles. Admittedly, the defendants who are the appellants before this Court did not appear in the Court below. The reasons disclosed by the appellant is that the uncles of the appellant have approached him for a compromise and they agreed to compromise the case and under this understanding after have filed the vakalatnama in the Court below, they did not contest the case or appear before the Trial Court. In the mean time, the plaintiffs filed an application for appointing a receiver. For appointment of the receiver, three factors have to be taken into consideration by the Court below i.e. the person making the prayer for appointment of a receiver has to prove a strong prima facie case in his favour along with the other two factors i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the party concerned. It has been pointed out by the appellants 3 that the subject matter of the suit involves lands and consists of several types of business by the parties which include running of petrol pump, Oil tankers, trucks, buses etc. No apparent reason has been mentioned in the order which would justify the appointment of a receiver with respect to one property only much less a reason for appointing one of the persons who are not a party in the suit. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 claims that the land belongs to him whereas the appellants’ claim that they are running the business vis-à-vis the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff that all business are jointly run by all the parties to the suit. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it would be proper that this matter should be remanded back to the Trial Court to reconsider all the claims of the respective parties and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the result, the order dated 26.02.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for its reconsideration. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )