CR No.1713 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1713 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 25.3.2010 Hari Ram ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dhan Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. P.L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.6518-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.1713 of 2010 As per averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents not to interfere in his cultivating possession over the suit land. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed an application for ad interim injunction which was allowed vide order dated 12.1.2007 and the defendant-respondents were directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the suit land except in due course of law. The appeal filed by the respondents against the aforesaid order was also dismissed vide order dated 3.9.2008. As per the further averments, the petitioner moved an application for appointment of Receiver for managing/cultivating and harvesting of crops of suit land as the respondents were taking away the crops sown by the petitioner on number of occasions. The petitioner had lodged a criminal complaint against the respondents and a case of theft was registered against them by the police. The aforesaid application of the CR No.1713 of 2010(O&M) 2 petitioner for appointment of Receiver was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 18.9.2009. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was in cultivating possession of the suit land and the respondents were not allowing him to cultivate the land and thus, to safeguard the right of the petitioner against the threatened invasion of the respondents in disobedience of order of injunction, relief ought to have been granted to the petitioner by appointing a Receiver for managing/cultivating his land. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, by way of interim order, the respondents have been restrained from dispossessing the petitioner who is alleged to be in possession of the suit property. In case the respondents have violated the aforesaid order, the petitioner has an independent remedy and in fact according to the petitioner, he has already filed a criminal complaint of theft against the respondents in this regard. No doubt, for preservation of the property in dispute the Court has the discretion to appoint a Receiver but this discretion has to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with law. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the suit property is in danger. In fact under the grab of this application, the petitioner wants to execute the ad interim order passed in his favour for which the course adopted by the petitioner is incorrect and his remedy lies elsewhere. In view thereof, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order whereby his prayer for appointment of the Receiver has been declined. Dismissed. March 25, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.1713 of 2010(O&M) 3