THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No. 408 of 2009 Judgment: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order, dated 21.01.2009, passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing I.A.No.410 of 2008 in O.S.No.962 of 2006 filed under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to appoint an Advocate Receiver to conduct auction of palm trees in the suit schedule property and to deposit the profits to the credit of the suit pending disposal of the suit. 2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.962 of 2006 filed for partition and separate possession of the joint family property, admeasuring Acs.24.07 gts, situated at Toopra Khurd Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.10 of 2007 and 410 of 2008 for grant of temporary injunction and for appointment of an Advocate Receiver, respectively. The trial Court, through a common order, dated 21.01.2009, dismissed both the I.As holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit schedule property remained unpartitioned and that in the event of refusal to grant temporary injunction and to appoint the Advocate Receiver, he would not suffer any irreparable loss. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff vehemently contended that the trial Court ought to have considered that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and the appellant is entitled to a share in the income derived from such property. He further contended that as the suit is filed for partition and separate possession, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Receiver, as prayed for in the I.A. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that all the properties were partitioned among the parties by their father and they are enjoying the same and as such, the suit as well as the applications filed by the appellant are not maintainable. He further contended that O.S.No.431 of 1994 filed by the first respondent, the father of the appellant, for partition and separate possession was dismissed and thereafter, the appellant filed the present suit. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The record discloses that Ramaiah died on 29.12.1990 leaving behind the parties to the suit as his legal heirs. The first respondent, who is the father of the appellant, filed O.S.No.431 of 1994 for partition and separate possession against his brothers, sister and mother and the same was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present suit for the self same relief along with the above said I.As. The second respondent, who contested the I.As., by filing a counter, stated that all the properties were divided among the parties during the life time of said Ramaiah and that the first respondent has no interest in the suit schedule property as he sold away his share. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court after going through the documents filed by the appellant has not accepted non-partition of the suit schedule property and dismissed the I.As., by giving cogent and convincing reasons. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date:20.09.2010. SJ