{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.42 OF 2010 Mr.Govindrao Ramchandra Kunde & others APPELLANTS VERSUS Suresh Govindrao Kunde & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.F.Totla, Advocate for the appellants Mr.R.N.Dhorde h//f Mr.N.P.Ghanwat, Advocate for R-1 and 2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 3rd May 2010 PER COURT: 1. The present Appeal From Order arises out of the order passed below Exhibit-16 in Special Civil Suit No.338/2008, an application for appointment of court receiver for the joint family property, which came to be allowed vide order dated 18.02.2010. 2. By consent of the parties, the present Appeal From Order is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. The first respondent has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the properties described in the schedule {2} annexed with the plaint. It is claimed that the said properties are the joint family properties of the appellants and respondents. Appellants No.1 & 2 to are father and mother, respectively of other appellants and respondents, in whose name the joint family properties stand. By passing an order below Exhibit-14, the lower court has prohibited the appellants and respondents from alienating the said property till the disposal of the suit. When such order is passed not to alienate the property, then it becomes obligatory to preserve the property from any danger till disposal of the suit. 4. Schedule of the properties shows that some of the properties are agricultural lands in which harvesting of onion crop was in progress at the relevant time. Whereas some property is in nature of shops run by some of the respondents. So as to protect and preserve the property in dispute, the first appellant, father of first respondent and others, who is an elderly person in the family is entrusted by the trial court by appointing him as a court receiver of the said property. In other words, the trial court has posed confidence in appellant No.1 as a fit person to preserve and protect the property and interest of all the litigants till the disposal of the suit. Perusal of the impugned order does not disclose any apparent error of law. The learned trial court has rightly appointed father, elderly person in the family, as the court receiver to protect interest of all the litigants. {3} 5. In the premise, the order passed by the learned lower court thereby appointing court receiver does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 6. Consequently, the Appeal From Order, which is sans merits stands rejected. 7, At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent No. 1states that taking advantage of the fact that the property is in possession of present appellants and other respondents though part of the onion crop is sold during the pendency of the suit yet no account is given for the same. Therefore, it is hereby clarified that respondent No.1 is at liberty to bring these facts to the notice of the lower court and he is not precluded from taking any suitable recourse in this regard. The Record and Proceedings be sent back forthwith. With this clarification the Appeal From Order stands disposed of. 8. It is, however, clarified that the observations in this order are prima facie, and the learned lower court need not be influenced with the same while deciding the suit finally. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ao42-10 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3956 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.42 OF 2010 Mr.Govindrao Ramchandra Kunde & others APPELLANTS VERSUS Suresh Govindrao Kunde & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.F.Totla, Advocate for the appellants Mr.R.N.Dhorde h//f Mr.N.P.Ghanwat, Advocate for R-1 and 2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 3rd May 2010 PER COURT: 1. As the Appeal From Order itself is dismissed, the present civil application does not survive. Accordingly, the civil application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ao42-10