CW No.1999/2008 (Prem Singh vs. Addl.District Judge, & Ors.) Date of order : 20/8/2008 1/3 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1999/2008 (Prem Singh vs. Addl.District Judge, & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 20/8/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.B.S.Sandhu, for the petitioner. 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 9/10/2007, whereby, the appellate court affirmed the order passed by the learned trial court dated30/10/2004 and thus both the courts rejected the application of defendant under order 40 Rule 1 CPC for appointment of Receiver in respect of suit property which was claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of his adoption by Smt. Inder Kanwar w/o Rao Baldev Singh and also on account of Will executed in his favour. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brig.Sawai Bhawani Singh vs. Indian Hotels Company Ltd. and others ( AIR 1997 SC 2183 ) submits that the plaintiff himself may hold the suit property as a custodia legis and should account for rent received by him in CW No.1999/2008 (Prem Singh vs. Addl.District Judge, & Ors.) Date of order : 20/8/2008 2/3 respect of suit property subject to decision of suit itself. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case in para no.3 observed as under: “In view of the fact that the respondents are continuing, as alleged, to be under an agreement, they would obviously act as a custodia legis pending the suit as Receivers on behalf of the Court. But any rights accrued or claimed by them will be subject to the result in the suit. The claim for enhancement of the rentals cannot be gone into in this case and it is dehors the relief in the suit. Under these circumstances, if it is permissible, appropriate steps may be taken by the appellant in any appropriate proceedings as per law.” 5. Thus it goes without saying that if petitioner defendant is able to establish his right before the learned trial court, the plaintiff will have to account for the rental received by him out of the suit property during the pendency of suit and the petitioner-defendant shall be free CW No.1999/2008 (Prem Singh vs. Addl.District Judge, & Ors.) Date of order : 20/8/2008 3/3 to take appropriate course in accordance with law for recovery of the share of rental, if any. 6. Thus, no error is found in the order passed by trial court or first appellate court having refused to appoint Receiver on the suit property but future course of action for the petitioner-defendant in accordance with law cited above is always open to him in accordance with law. 7. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.6 baweja/-