IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 FAO.No. 260 of 2009() --------------------- OS.394/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------- MUKUNDAN ALIAS BABY, S/O.LATE PARAYIL KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, AKAMALA DESOM,ENGHAKKAD VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------ 1. SASIDHARAN, S/O.LATE PARAYIL KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, AKAMALA DESOM,ENGHAKKAD VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. PREMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE PARAYI KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, AKAMALA DESOM,ENGHAKKAD VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O.LATE PARAYIL GOVINDAN, AKAMALA DESOM,ENGHAKKAD VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. BINDU, D/O.LATE PARAYIL GOVINDAN, AKAMALA DESOM,ENGHAKKAD VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK. 5. VINOD, S/O.LATE PARAYIL GOVINDAN, AKAMALA DESOM,ENGHAKKAD VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK. 6. BEENA, D/O.LATE PARAYIL GOVINDAN, AKAMALA DESOM,ENGHAKKAD VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK. 7. PARUKUTTY, D/O.LATE PARAYIL KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, W/O.KAKAPARAMBIL VENUGOPALAN, CHEROOR DESOM, VILVATTAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. FAO.260/09 2 8. PANKAJAKSHI, D/O.LATE PARAYIL KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, W/O.THENIKINKAL VADAKKETHIL SREEDHARAN, THONOORKKARA DESOM, CHALAKKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 9. AMBUJAKSHI, D/O.LATE PARAYIL KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, W/O.NJAREKKATUVALAPPIL KRISHNANKUTTY, EDAKKULAM DESOM, AVANUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- F.A.O.No.260 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Notice to the unserved respondents dispensed with. The case is treated as ripe. The first defendant, in a suit for partition, has filed this appeal against dismissal of an application filed by him for appointment of a Receiver. Looking at the plaint and the written statement of the first defendant, the controversies are as to how the partition should be effected. The first defendant does not claim that he has exclusive right on an item which is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. The court below, after adverting to and considering the relevant facts, came to the conclusion that it is not just and convenient to appoint a Receiver. In our view, the court below rightly held that the words “just and convenient” used in Order XL Rule 1 do not FAO.260/09 2 mean that the court has to appoint a Receiver simply because the court thinks it convenient. It is stated that by now, the suit is listed for trial on 11.6.2010. At this point of time, we do not think it necessary to upset the view taken by the court below, that too in discretion, and consider the question of appointing a Receiver. We are also of the view that the suit is in a primitive stage, as of now, to consider the appointment of Receiver, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances. May be, after the passing of the preliminary decree, if so found, the court can look into such issues also if it becomes necessary, just and convenient to take any such interlocutory measure. Without prejudice to any such course, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.10/06.