IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4874 OF 2009 Between: Cherukumalli Bhaskar Rao …Petitioner A n d Paramkusham Thandava Krishna ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4874 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 08-09-2009 in C.M.A.No.7 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Khammam, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein, the plaintiff, was allowed, setting aside the order dated 05-12-2007 in I.A.No.1180 of 2007 in O.S.No.210 of 2007, wherein the said petition was dismissed, but, however, appointing a receiver. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner/ defendant for specific performance of suit agreement of sale and permanent injunction. The petitioner filed written statement contesting the suit. The respondent also filed I.A.No.778 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the schedule property. A n ex parte interim injunction was granted. Later, the respondent filed I.A.No.1180 of 2007 stating that instead of asking for interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession, by mistake injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property was sought. By a common order dated 05-12-2007, both the applications were dismissed by the trial Court holding that the plaintiff failed to prove prima facie that he is in possession of the schedule property from the date of filing the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.7 of 2008. By the impugned order, the appeal was disposed of setting aside the impugned order and appointing the receiver to take possession of three acres out of schedule land and auction the leasehold rights between the parties every year. Hence, the present civil revision petition by the defendant. 4. Admittedly, the suit is filed for specific performance and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of a portion of the schedule property. The trial Court refused to grant temporary injunction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show that he was in possession of the petition schedule property on the date of filing the petition. The appellate Court, while setting aside the said order of the trial Court, appointed a receiver to take possession of the schedule property. Neither of the parties has asked for appointment of a receiver on the ground that there is scramble for possession. It is also not the case of either of the parties that the schedule property is subject to damage or waste by the other party. In a celebrated decision in T.KRISHNA SWAMY CHETTY v. THANGAVELU CHETTY[1], the principles that govern the appointment of receiver have been enunciated in the following terms: (1) The appointment of a receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court. The discretion is not arbitrary or absolute: it is a sound and judicial discretion, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, exercised-for the purpose of permitting the ends of justice, and protecting the rights of all parties interested in the controversy and the subject-matter and based upon the fact that there is no other adequate remedy or means of accomplishing the desired objects of the judicial proceeding. (2) The Court should not appoint a receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit. (3) Not only must the plaintiff show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but, he must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action and of his own right, he must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. The element of danger is an important consideration. A Court will not act on possible danger only; the danger must be great and imminent demanding immediate relief. It has been truly said that a Court will never appoint a receiver merely on the ground that it will do no harm. (4) An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a 'de facto' possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. If the dispute is as to title only, the Court very reluctantly disturbs possession by receiver, but if the property is exposed to danger and loss and the person in possession has obtained it through, fraud or force the Court will interpose by receiver for the security of the property. It would be different where the property is shown to be 'in medio', that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one, as the Court can hardly do wrong in taking possession: it will then be the common interest of all the parties that the Court should prevent a scramble as no one seems to be in actual lawful enjoyment of the property and no harm can be done to anyone by taking it and preserving it for the benefit of the legitimate who may prove successful. Therefore, even if there is no allegation of waste and mismanagement the fact that the property is more or less 'in medio' is sufficient to vest a Court with jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. Otherwise a receiver should not be appointed in supersession of a bone fide possessor of property in controversy and bona fides have to be presumed until the contrary is established or can be indubitably inferred. (5) The Court, on the application for a receiver, looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application and will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from blame. He must come to Court with clean hands and should not have disentitled himself to the equitable relief by laches, delay, acquiescence etc. None of the guidelines stated above is attracted to the facts of the present case. In the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge observed that it is a fit case for appointment of receiver in order to avoid law and order problem and possession of the property and rights of both parties will be saved if receiver is appointed. Neither of the parities has pleaded for appointment of receiver nor made out any case for such appointment. The learned Additional District Judge observed that he does not find any reason to grant any injunction. When that is so, the appeal ought to have been dismissed, confirming the order of the trial Court, whereunder injunction was not granted. The appellate Court, however, went a step further by appointing a receiver unasked for and for no valid reason. The impugned order is, therefore, wholly unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The parties shall, however, maintain status quo obtaining as on the date of the impugned order in the CMA in respect of the schedule land till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th March, 2010 Lrkm. [1] AIR 1955 MADRAS 430