IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1240 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------- CMA.5/2008 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR OS.274/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------------ VELLOORIDATHIL THAZHATHIDATHIL THARAWAD MEMBERS, REPRESENTED BY DAMODHARAN NAYANAR, S/O.MAAKKI AKKANAMMA, RETIRED HEAD MASTER, RESIDING AT "PUTHIYA MADAM", PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, PAYYAVOOR.P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. M.KRISHNAN, S/O.KANNAN, "SOUPARNIKA", VALANNOOR, CHELORA AMSOM DESOM, PIN-670 633. 2. M.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.KORAN, "SREERA NIVAS", THALAP, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR-670 004. 3. VELLOORIDATHIL THAZHATHIDATHIL KUNHIRAMAN @ KRISHNAN NAYANAR, S/O.MAAKKI AKKANAMMA, MALAPPATTOM AMSOM, CHOOLIYAD DESOM, KANNUR, PIN-670 631. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P(Civil). NO. 1240 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Since the impugned orders were passed before issuing notice to the respondents and in view of the order I propose to pass in this petition, notice to respondents is not necessary and hence is dispensed with. The orders returning Exts.P8 and P9 applications in C.M.A No.5 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Payyannoor are under challenge. 2. Petitioner filed an application in the trial court for appointment of a Receiver. Trial court dismissed the application. Petitioner took up the matter before learned Sub Judge in C.M.A No.5 of 2008. Learned Sub Judge rejected request of petitioner to appoint an Advocate as Receiver but, finding that respondent No.2 was performing service as 'Madayan', he was appointed as party Receiver. That order was challenged in this court in O.P.(Civil) No. 480 of 2010. The challenge did not succeed. Later petitioner filed Exts.P8 and P9, applications before the learned Sub Judge to appoint a Receiver for the 'Madappura' alleging that respondent No.2 did not assume charge as Receiver but he continued as self- appointed 'Madayan', and to take action against respondent No.2. Those applications were returned for the reason that the C.M. appeal has already been disposed of and hence the applications are to be filed in the trial court. Learned Senior Advocate contends that the court of learned Sub Judge did not becoem functus officio by appointing a Receiver and that the said court continued to have jurisdiction and control over the Receiver. 3. Having heard learned Senior Advocate and going through the various rules of Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am inclined to accept that argument. The court which appointed the Receiver continues to have jurisdiction and control over the Receiver. In the circumstances, I am persuaded to think that the order returning Exts.P8 and P9, applications are not proper. Hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Orders returning Exts. P8 and P9, applications are set aside and the learned Sub Judge is directed to receive such applications, give notice to the parties concerned, hear both sides and pass appropriate orders as provided under law. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE mns