THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 1254 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against an order in I.A.No. 1111 of 2004 in O.S. No. 218 of 2004 dated 10.6.2005 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants. Appellant laid suit in O.S. No. 218 of 2004 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. During pendency of the suit, present I.A. No. 1111 of 2004 in O.S. No. 218 of 2004 was filed under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the plaint schedule property for administration of the same by way of lease, pending disposal of the suit. The said application was resisted by respondents- defendants. After detailed consideration of the entire material available on record, the Court below dismissed the said I.A. on 10.6.2005 as follows: “In the light of these contentions and the documents marked on respondents’ side namely gift deeds in respect of the plaint schedule properties executed by Kamalamma in their favour and failure of the petitioner to establish any damage or acts of waste by the respondents, petitioner is not justified in requesting this Court for an order of appointment of a receiver which is an harsh and extreme one. In the result, this petition is dismissed”. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The very application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC was dismissed as early as on 10.6.2005. Though this appeal is filed, no interim order has been passed by this Court. Now, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial is completed and the suit is posted for arguments. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that even if this Court goes into the merits of the appeal at this stage, it will not have any bearing on the suit which is pending. Due to afflux of time and advancement of the suit, the cause in the appeal also does not survive for adjudication. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 12-8-2010. MVB.