IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.572 of 2011 1. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh. 2. Anand Prakash, S/o Sri Ashok Kumar Singh. 3. Amar Prakash, S/o Sri Ashok Kumar Singh. 4. Arun Kumar Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh. 5. Chintu, 6. Mantu, Both minor sons of Sri Arun Kumar Singh under guardianship of their natural father. 7. Anil Kumar Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh. 8. Bhola 9. Chhote Both minor sons of Sri Anil Kumar Singh under guardianship of their natural father. 10. Sunil Kumar Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh. 11. Amit, minor sons of Sunil Kumar Singh under guardianship of his natural father. 12. Amresh Singh @ Santosh Kumar Singh @ Tunni Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh. 13. Alok, Minor son of Sri Amresh Singh. All residents of village – Fatehpur Surway, P.S. – Malsalami at present, P.S. – Didarganj, District – Patna. ………. Defendants, Appellants Versus 1. Lav Kush Singh @ Vijay Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh. 2. Ravi Shankar Singh, S/o Sri Lav Kush Singh. 3. Shiv Shankar Singh, S/o Sri Lav Kush Singh. All residents of village – Fatehpur Surway, P.S. – Malsalami at present P.S. – Didarganj, District – Patna. Presently residing in village – Chandpur, P.S. – Chandi, District – Nalanda. ………… Plaintiff, Respondent 1st set ---------------------------------- 8 20.12.2011 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, who was assisted by Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Dhruv Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs/respondents. 2. The present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (s) of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred by defendants / appellants against an order dated 19.04.2011 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 111 of 2005. By the said order the learned Sub Judge III, Patna, has allowed the petition filed by the plaintiffs 2 /respondents for appointment of Receiver to manage the suit property. The learned court below has appointed Circle Officer of Sampatchak Circle, Patna as Receiver for managing the affairs of the suit property. 3. The defendants/appellants and plaintiffs/respondents are step brothers. The plaintiffs/respondents had filed suit for partition i.e. Title Partition Suit No. 111 of 2005 claiming the suit property as joint property and for its partition for grant of their share. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs / respondents filed a petition for appointment of Receiver. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that regarding the suit property earlier no partition had taken place and defendants / appellants were mismanaging the suit property. Some of the suit properties were acquired by the Government, and thereafter, the defendants / appellants succeeded in getting the compensation award amount. It was further pleaded that no share was being given by the defendants to the plaintiffs, and as such, it was necessary for appointment of Receiver. 4. Before the court below, the defendants / appellants filed written statement wherein plea was taken that partition amongst parties had already taken place long back in the year 1996 and after partition the defendants / appellants were enjoying properties of their share. It was objected for appointment of Receiver. 5. After going through the impugned order, it is evident, that the learned court below has proceeded on assumption that in 3 cases of appointment of Receiver, defendants were required to produce evidence to demolish the case of the plaintiffs for appointment of Receiver, whereas, fact remains that in such cases, if a person is claiming for appointment of Receiver he must satisfy the court regarding prima facie case on better footing than the case for grant of injunction. It was also required to satisfy the court that in absence of passing order for appointment of Receiver there was possibility of irreparable loss to the party. 6. From the impugned order it is evident that there were no materials, rather the plaintiffs had not adduced any material to fulfill the aforesaid conditions, and even without any reason, the learned court below has passed an order for appointment of Receiver. 7. At the time of hearing, Sri Dhruv Narayan, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents had admitted that at least Circle Officer, was not required to be appointed as Receiver. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that without any material on record, the learned court below has passed order for appointment of Receiver. Accordingly, the impugned order i.e. the order dated 19.04.2011 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 111 of 2005 regarding appointment of Receiver is hereby set aside. 9. The partition suit was filed in the year 2005 and it is still pending. In view of the fact, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the suit expeditiously, so that, the trial may 4 come to its end without any unnecessary delay. The court expects that both plaintiffs/respondents and defendants/appellants shall render full co-operation to the court below for early disposal of the suit. 10. With above observation and direction, the appeal stands allowed. However, in view of facts and circumstances, no cost is imposed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)