THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No. 17 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 29.12.2004 in I.A.No.4223 of 2001 in O.S.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as the appellant and the respondent as arrayed in this C.M.A. 3. The respondent filed the application under Order XL Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to appoint an Advocate Receiver to manage the petition schedule properties and deposit the profits to the credit of the suit. But, however, the trial court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the appellant to deposit half of the rents into court on or before 10th of every month. 4. The appellant’s case is that she is the absolute owner of the petition A schedule property and she has been receiving the rents from her tenants. She is also having a car which has been used for her personal purposes. She has no other source of income except rentals over the property. 5. On the other hand, the respondent stated that he filed the suit against the appellant for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties, among which the petition schedule properties are also there. The respondent is adopted son of one Kothapalli Rajeswar, who died intestate leaving himself, and the appellant herein, who is second wife of Kothapalli Rajeswar, as such they have to equally share the properties left behind by Kothapalli Rajeshwar. The appellant in collusion with the tenants of the petition A schedule property, started receiving rents from them since one year. The appellant is letting the Ambassador Car, which is petition B schedule property, on hire to various persons on paltry charges without giving his share. The appellant is living at Vijayawada and she is not managing the petition schedule properties properly and coming to Madhira only to collect rents and hire charges. The said property is being damaged and wasted owing to the ineffective management of the appellant. Hence, he sought for appointment of an Advocate Receiver to manage the properties. 6. The trial court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the respective counsel, directed the appellant to deposit half of the rents into court on or before 10th of every month. Hence, the C.M.A. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the court below ought not to have directed the appellant to deposit half of the rents into court in the application, which was filed under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate-Receiver to manage the petition schedule properties. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the court below after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also to safeguard the interest of the respondent, directed the appellant to deposit half of the rents into court, and as such, the impugned order does not warrant interference from this court. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 10. It is to be seen that the trial court after going through the record and also the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the appellant to deposit half of the rents into court on or before 10th of every month. The appellant is the second wife of late Kothapally Rajeswar Rao and the respondent is his adopted son. The suit is filed for partition. A direction was also given by the trial court that the deposited amount shall not be given to any party till disposal of the suit. Having regard to these facts, this court is not inclined to disturb the order of the trial court as it has been passed without prejudice to the rights of both the parties in the suit. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the trial court ought not to have directed the respondent to deposit half of the rents into court in the application filed for appointment of Advocate/Receiver, is concerned, the trial court is empowered to pass such an order in the given facts and circumstances. As such, the above contention is not acceptable. 11. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J -03-2010 Stp