^Nai»= IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.^.^il _/2010 (S.B.) PETITIONER Applicant/plaintiff 1, ft^' ^/^'^' \f6&y" ^y ^. 3. ^y Heeralal, S/o Late Jivanlal Kesharwani Aged about 45 Years, Resident of Sukulpara, Village - Kharoud, Tahsil - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) Ramkali W/o Shri Hari Gupta, Aged about 50 years, Resident of Saragaon, Tahsil - Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa(C,G.) Heerabai, W/o Kumar Prasad Gupta, Aged about 45 years, Resident of Budhwari Chouwk, Korba (C.G.) RESPONDENTS DEFENDANT no. 1 DEFENDANT no. 2 DEFENDANTno^ DEFENDANT no.4 DEFENDANT no. 5 DEFENDANT no. 6 VERSUS 1. Mangal Prasad S/o Late Badriprasad Kesharwani, aged about 55 years, 2. Anil Prasad S/o Late Badriprasad Kesharwani, aged about 48 years, 3. Arun Kumar S/o Late Badriprasad Kesharwani, aged about43 years, 4. Bablu S/o Late Badriprasad Kesharwani, aged about 38 years, All the respondent no. 1 to 4 is resident of Bhoghapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District - Janjgir - Champa 5. Shail Kumar W/o Rameshwar, Kesharwani aged about 48 years, Resident of post Tahsil - Nawagarh, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) .'" 6. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, Raipur (C.G) ^ ^ WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICAL 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION (S) OR ORDER (S). fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kmnar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 6858/2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Heeralal and others Versus Mangal Prasad artd others Appearance: Shri Sunil Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.R. Sinha, PL for the State/respondent No.6. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (29.11.2010) The trial court has rejected the petitioners/plaintiffs application under Order 40 Rule 1 ofCPC for appointment ofreceiver. (2) Learned counsel would submit that the defendants are in possession of the suit land and if ultimately the suit is decreed it would be difficult to obtain the accounts for making a prayer for obtaining a decree of means profit, therefore the leamed trial court should have allowed the prayer for appoinfment ofreceiver. (3) On a reading ofthe order passed by the trial court, it does not appear that the plaintiff has, at aiiy point of time averred that the property in the hands of defendants is wasted or that the defendants are likely to dispose of the propeit)/r. In the absence of such allegations having been made, the leamed trial court has not committed any en-or of jurisdiction in rejecting the prayer '^ i appointment ofreceiver. for '% ^^gg^^ (^0 (4) It has rightly been obser^ed by the trial court that if the petitioner so desires,he may move an application for amendment praying decree for means profit. (5) Leamed counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, would submit that the suit is pending since 2006 and the defendants are delaying disposal ofthe suit. (6) In the opinion of this court, the trial court is expected to dispose ofthe suit, be it the present suit or any other matter as early as possible and for that purpose no direction is needed. (7) With this observation, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge :'K ^