IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33842 of 2008(D) -------------------------------------------- IA. 922/2008 IN OS.149/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: K.Y.THOMASKUTTY, S/O.YOHANNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KULAMANKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, PANDITHITTA MURI, THALAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT: SHIJU THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, SHIJU BHAVAN, KANNIMELTHERIYIL, PATTAZHY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33842 of 2008 D -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.149/07 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. He filed the suit (Exhibit P2 is the plaint) for a decree restraining the defendant from trespassing into the scheduled property and from slaughter tapping the rubber trees and from cutting and removing those trees on the basis of Exhibit P1 agreement for the reason that the period mentioned in the agreement has expired. In other words, the stand taken by the plaintiff is that after the period mentioned in Exhibit P1 agreement the defendant is not entitled to enter into the estate and cut and remove the rubber trees given for slaughter tapping as per Exhibit P1 agreement. The learned Munsiff, vide Exhibit P4 order passed on Exhibit P3 application for appointment of a receiver, to dispose off the rubber trees in the property as per the market price and to deposit the sale proceeds in court WPC 33842/08 2 allowed the prayer and receiver was appointed to slaughter tap the rubber trees standing within the scheduled property and to sell the same at the market price within a period of one month and to deposit the sale proceeds before the court and directed further that the receiver shall furnish security for an amount of Rs.60,000/- for the due compliance of the duties as enjoined upon him. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner, highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was under the impression that a third party receiver will be appointed for disposal of the rubber trees as instruction was given orally by the Munsiff to file a panel, from which a receiver could be appointed. From Exhibit P4 order dated 23.9.2008, it is, however, not evident. It is seen that vide Exhibit P5 order passed on the same day on the same I.A. respondent/defendant himself is appointed as receiver with direction to furnish security for Rs.60,000/- and Exhibit P5(a) order was issued to the defendant on 4.10.2008 appointing WPC 33842/08 3 him as receiver to slaughter tap the rubber trees and cut and remove the same at the market price within a period of one month and to deposit the sale proceeds before the court. Till 4.10.2008, no panel of Receivers was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that no amount as ordered is furnished as security nor has the defendant deposited the sale proceeds producing also the accounts thereof, though he has cut and removed all the trees from the scheduled property. It is seen that vide Exhibit P6 application dated 13.10.2008 the petitioner has moved for review of the order appointing the respondent/defendant as receiver and filed Exhibit P7 injunction petition restraining the respondent from cutting and removing the trees till orders are passed on the review petition. It does not appear that any order has been passed thereon. 3. However, it is worthy to note that even on the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, WPC 33842/08 4 entire trees have been cut and removed from the scheduled property after slaughter tapping and the time of one month fixed in Exhibits P4 and P5(a) have expired also as on the date of filing this writ petition on 11.11.2008. Hence, no purpose will be served by quashing Exhibit P5 (a) order appointing the respondent as receiver. Consequently, therefore, this writ petition deserves only to be dismissed. If at all the security to the tune of Rs.60,000/- has not been furnished in compliance with the order of the court below and sale proceeds are not deposited in the court with proper statement of accounts, it is for the trial court, which appointed the receiver, to pass necessary orders in that behalf. Hence, without prejudice to the petitioner moving for appropriate reliefs, which he can ask for at present, inasmuch as all rubber trees are cut and removed, I dispose of this writ petition. 17th November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv