MIR MOHAMMED HAJI Vs. HASEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) These appeals are filed challenging the order dtd. 21/4/2023 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.69/2018, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal, allowing the application filed under Order 40 Rule 1 of CPC, wherein appointed the receiver and directed the receiver to sell the mango crops and also other crops grown in the plaint A and C to J suit properties and deposit the sale proceeds in the Court pending disposal of the suit.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was filed in the year 2018 and the application was filed in 2021 for appointment of receiver after lapse of three years and the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the application and appointing the receiver. The learned counsel would contend that when there was already a partition between the parties, the Trial Court committed an error in appointing the receiver and whether there was already a partition or not has to be adjudicated before the Trial Court. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in terms of the partition, the parties have acted upon and the plaintiff has also sold some of the property after the said partition based on M.R.No.275/1996-97 and contend that it is a frivolous suit.