IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 FAO.No. 371 of 2010() -------------------------------- I.A.1677/2008 IN OS.534/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- A. ZEENATH, W/O.S. SHAFI MUSLIAR, RESIDING AT SHAFI MANZIL, TKM COLLEGE.P.O., KARIKODE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN, SRI.S. SREEDEV. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. A. LAILA, W/O.HASHIM, RESIDING AT SALMA, VEMBAYAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. A. SAFIA, W/O.ANZARI LEBBA, RESIDING AT KAMALIYA MANZIL, KANIYAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. A. SABEENA, W/O.AZAD, RESIDING AT AZAD GARDEN, ASHOKAPURAM, ALUVA. 4. A. SALEENA, W/O.T.J. FAIZAL, RESIDING AT ARAFA, GANDHI NAGAR, HOUSING COLONY, AMALAGIRI.P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FAO No.371 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 20th December 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. This is an appeal filed challenging the order rejecting an application for appointment of a Receiver to administer the suit properties. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that she is a partner in relation to the assets involved in the suit. The court below refused to appoint a Receiver. However, it went on to indicate in the impugned order that the claim of the appellant that she is a partner, is also unsustainable. We are clear in our mind that in adjudicating a matter for appointment of a Receiver, it is only sufficient for the court below to notice as to whether it was just and convenient, as also reasonable, to make the appointment of a Receiver and also as to whether there was a strong prima facie case in support of the request to appoint a Receiver. The learned counsel for the appellant also indicates that there is yet another suit between the parties wherein the question was pending consideration. Whatever that be, we are clear in our mind that any finding in the impugned order regarding the status of the plaintiff as claimed by her cannot have FAO 371/2010 2 any impact on the trial of the suit. We, therefore, refuse to interfere with the impugned order, however clarifying that all findings therein regarding the status of the plaintiff as claimed by her, that is to say, as a partner in relation to the suit assets, would not bind the parties and the court below will decide the suit untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order. The appeal is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta FAO 371/2010 3