IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2129 OF 2010 Between:- Kanteti Ratna Manikyam …Petitioner A n d Teki Satyavathi and 3 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2129 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 30-04-2010 in I.A.No.510 of 2010 in I.A.No.1812 of 2008 in O.S.No.68 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, wherein the said application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking suitable orders and appropriate directions to the receiver in regard to plaint ‘B’ schedule property, was allowed, granting police aid, with a direction to the SHO concerned i.e., Tanuku to provide police escort. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant and the learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed the suit for partition in respect of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. They also filed I.A.No.1812 of 2008 under Order XL Rule 1 CPC for appointment of receiver to take possession of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, manage the same and deposit the auction proceeds into the Court, pending disposal of the suit. By order dated 15-06-2009, the trial Court allowed the said application and appointed an Advocate as a receiver with a direction to take possession of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, manage and auction the leasehold rights and deposit the auction proceeds into Court, pending disposal of the suit. According to the petitioner-defendant, the said order was passed ex parte. The respondents-plaintiffs, however, dispute the same. The copy of the order dated 15-06-2009 in I.A.No.1812 of 2008, however, would show that the first respondent i.e., the petitioner herein remained ex parte. The body of the order shows that the respondents remained ex parte. It is stated that the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.1095 of and 1096 of 2009 for discharging the receiver and also for setting aside the ex parte order appointing the receiver in I.A.No.1812 2009. It is further stated that the said applications are still pending. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.510 of 2010 seeking appropriate directions to the receiver in regard to plaint ‘B’ schedule property. According to them, the receiver has taken possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property and auctioned the leasehold rights of plaint ‘A’ schedule property and filed interim report on 20-07-2009, but the petitioner-defendant herein caused obstruction when the receiver sought to take possession of plaint ‘B’ schedule property. It is stated that the receiver also filed a memo before the trial Court to the effect that the petitioner refused to handover plaint ‘B’ schedule property and, therefore, he is unable to take possession. The plaintiffs did not specifically seek grant of police aid for execution of the warrant by the receiver in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property, but the receiver in his memo stated that it is necessary to give women police protection for taking possession of plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The trial Court, by the impugned docket order which is cryptic, granted police aid. 4. It is to be noted that plaint ‘B’ schedule property is admittedly a house where the petitioner-defendant is residing. The question as to whether or not the appointment of receiver in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property in the absence of proof of any acts of waste or damage, in a partition suit, is a matter to be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. The fact remains that I.A.Nos.1095 and 1096 of 2009 filed by the petitioner- defendant for discharging the receiver and for setting aside the ex parte order of appointment of receiver, are still pending before the trial Court. Without disposing of the said applications, the trial Court has, by the impugned order, thought it fit to grant police aid to evict the petitioner- defendant from plaint ‘B’ schedule house property. 5. In the circumstances, without going into merits of the matter as to appointment of receiver, it is just and necessary to direct the trial Court to dispose of I.A.Nos.1095 and 1096 of 2009 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order at the first instance before considering any application filed by the plaintiffs or memo by the receiver seeking further directions to the receiver. 6. The impugned order granting police aid is, therefore, held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th February, 2011 Lrkm.