1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 122 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Advocate Shri Y.R. Barhate, for the appellant. 2. Present appellant is the original plaintiff who filed Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded for partition and separate possession against his brothers- respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and mother- respondent No.3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are the purchasers of the property from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2 3. By application Exhibit 8 in Special Civil Suit Noi. 117 of 2007, the appellant- plaintiff sought appointment of the receiver under Order 40 Rules (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In paragraph 6 of the application, it is alleged by the appellant-plaintiff that there was partition effected between appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 2.2.2005, but thereafter when the appellant went to the plot bearing No. 25 in survey No.44/2 at Mukhed, he noticed that his share was already sold by defendant No. 3 to defendant No.8 by executing a registered sale deed and, therefore, he wanted to cancel the partition deed and accordingly informed Respondents-Defendant no. 1 to 3. 4. It is also stated that defendant No. 1 manipulated the documents in respect of property bearing No.19 situated in Ward No. 3 10 of Umri, whereby Defendant No.1 posed himself as exclusive heir and owner of the property and obtained entire consideration. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, more appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to seek prevention to further alienation of the property or creation of third party interest by respondent No. 1 to 3 in respect of the properties which are with the family. 6. After considering the reasons given by the learned trial court judge and in view of Order 40 Rule 1 (2) of C.P.C., appointment of the receiver would not be in the interest of the main parties i.e. appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant is not sure whether the appellant has sought injunction in respect of creation of third 4 party interest or encumbrance on the properties. If the appellant has not resorted to such remedy, he is at liberty to do so. In case such recourse is already followed by the appellant and relief is obtained, then the remedy is to proceed for violation of the order. 8. With observations as above, this appeal from order stands dismissed at the admission stage. Date:14/10/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ao122.09