THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.990 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.22 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa for the relief of rendition of accounts in respect of a Cinema Theatre. At his instance, respondent No.2 was appointed as a Receiver. However, after respondent No.2 functioned for four months, the trial Court realized that the name of respondent No.2 does not find place in the list of approved Receivers. Therefore, another Receiver was appointed in the place of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 submitted a Memo before the trial Court, claiming a sum of Rs.29,869/- as expenditure incurred by him for the period of four months and the same was numbered as S.R.No.1447 of 2008. This included the salary to a Clerk and to a Watchman, cost of locks, cost of printing and publication of pamphlets, etc. The petitioner filed detailed objections to the Memo finding fault with certain amounts. Through its order, dated 02.01.2009, the trial Court allowed S.R.No.1447 of 2008 and directed the petitioner and respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.16,184/- each towards the expenditure incurred by respondent No.2. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Respondent No.2 was appointed as a Receiver at the instance of the petitioner himself. For a period of four months, he has not only looked after the day-to-day affairs of the Theatre, but also printed certain pamphlets as required of him. He came to be substituted by another Receiver on account of the fact that his name did not find place in the list of approved Receivers. He is naturally entitled to be paid the expenditure incurred by him. By furnishing the details of each and every item, he claimed a sum of Rs.29,869/-. The objections raised by the petitioner are, in fact, frivolous in nature. For instance, he took exception even for purchase of 15 locks by the Receiver on the ground that the locks were already existing. The trial Court assigned cogent reasons for allowing the application. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 04.06.2010. kdl