IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3519 OF 2009 Between : Moka Veeramma .... PETITIONER A N D Moka Naga Sreenivasulu …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3519 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 01.06.2009 in C.M.A.No.12 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereunder and whereby, the order and decree dated 01.11.2007 in I.A.No.416 of 2007 in O.S.No.127 of 2007 were confirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein /appellant contended that the suit was filed for partition where the rights of the parties are yet to be ascertained; that unless one of the parties who indulged in the acts of waste or damage to the schedule property, a receiver cannot be appointed; that further if the respondent ultimately succeeds in the suit he gets all the benefits with regard to mesne profits in pursuance of a preliminary decree; that appointment of receiver is harshest remedy and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. 3. In spite of giving several opportunities, the counsel for the respondent did not appear. 4. As seen from the pleadings, it is clear that the petitioner and the respondent purchased the schedule property and constructed a lodge with 18 rooms and a marriage function hall in the first floor in the name and style of “Sri Shivapriya Lodge”, which is under the Management of the respondent. The case of the petitioner herein is that her husband purchased the property in the name of the petitioner and in pursuance of a partition, the property for which a receiver was appointed fell to the share of the petitioner and therefore, a receiver can be appointed to manage the properties. 5. It is alleged that the petitioner started mismanagement of accounts and caused loss to the respondent and utilizing all the rents received from the marriage hall and lodge for her personal necessities. The petitioner contended that the respondent has no right or title in any manner over the lodge and marriage function hall as the same were constructed by the petitioner and her husband. Therefore, when there is a serious dispute with regard to as to who constructed the lodge and marriage hall, it has to be decided in the trial of the Suit. If ultimately the petitioner succeeds in the suit, she can as well claim mesne profits to the extent of her share for which she is entitled. Therefore, it is not a fit case to appoint a receiver, as the case does not fall under any one of the grounds mentioned in a decision reported in Muniammal V. P.M.Ranganatha Nayagar and another[1] wherein it was held thus: “firstly the plaintiff applying for the appointment of a Receiver must show ‘prima facie’ that he has a strong case and good title to the property or a special equity in his favour; secondly, where the property is in medio that is to say, in the possession of no one, a Receiver can readily be appointed that the property in the hands of the defendant in danger being wasted. thirdly, application for appointment of a Receiver should always be made promptly and delay in making it is a circumstance unfavourable to such an appointment” 6. Therefore, it is not a fit case to appoint a receiver and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2009 in C.M.A.No.12 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 07, 2011 YVL [1] AIR 1955 Madras 571