IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1651 of 2008 KAMAL DEO THAKUR & ORS Versus VISHAMBHAR THAKUR & ORS ----------- 2 26.09.2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 5980 of 2008), the delay in fling of this application is hereby condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would not approve that the vindictive attitude of Sri K.D. Thakur the lawyer of the petitioner in the Court below who had filed Annexure-5. There was no reason for him to get personal and make comments on the Court. As a matter of fact, the Court below has not decided anything save and except it has proceeded on the basis that when in terms of the prayer made by the plaintiff-petitioner on 31.8.2002 for appointment of receiver, an order was passed on 6.6.2005 and the two successive Advocate Commissioners could not function as a receiver leading to the appointment of one Sri Ram Bali Chaudhary, Advocate on 22.2.2007, due to his not being allowed to take possession of the suit property for functioning as a receiver by the parties and had passed an order on 13.4.2007 seeking delivery of possession of the property to the aforesaid receiver. The expression ‘the delivery of possession’ used in the impugned order in fact would mean only that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court had to allow to take charge of the property and the Court below could have got its order executed even by taking coercive measure including use of police force. The petitioner instead of opposing such order of - 2 - appointment of Advocate Commissioner which had become final between the parties was expected to comply the same in later and spirit. Obviously, there is no error in the approach of the Court below and its consequential impugned order. That being so, this application in fact is without any substance and is disposed of in the light of observation made in this order. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)