IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 5TH ASWINA 1929 FAO.No. 168 OF 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2007 IN IA.781/2006 IN OS.108/2004 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1. T.O.ALEYAS, S/O.LATE KURUVILLA UNNITTAN, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL, RAMANCHIRA, MUTHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. ABRAHAM BABY, S/O. LATE BABY, RESIDING AT MARY SADANAM, THURUTHICAUD P.O., MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. BOBBY T. KURIAKOSE, S/O. LATE KURIAKOSE, RESIDING AT URUMBIKUNNEL HOUSE, THURUTHICAUD P.O., MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D.NAIR RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS 1. ST.MARY'S BUILDERS, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS WORKING PARTNERS T.O.ABRAHAM, S/O. LATE KURUVILLA UNNITTAN, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, THURUTHIKKADU P.O., MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. T.O.ABRAHAM, S/O. LATE KURUVILLA UNNITTAN, WORKING PARTNER, M/S.ST.MARY'S BUILDERS, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, THURUTHIKKADU P.O., MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. :2: F.A.O. 168/2007 3. THOMAS SKARIAH, S/O. LATE T.S.SKARIAH, PARTNER, M/S. ST.MARY'S BUILDERS, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL URUMBIKUNNEL HOUSE, THURUTHIKKADU P.O., MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 168 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2007. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, in I.A. 781/2006 in O.S. No. 108/2004, dated 28.2.2007, declining to appoint a receiver as sought for by the appellant. The suit is one for settlement of accounts of a dissolved firm. It is in respect of a partly completed building that the appellant sought for appointment of a receiver. There is nothing to be managed by the receiver having due regard to the subject matter. The court below has already appointed a Commissioner, an expert Engineer and a Chartered Accountant for the purpose of verifying the accounts and to submit a report. In these circumstances, the order passed by the court below declining to appoint a reviver cannot be said to be illegal or wrong. For the above reason we find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-