IBRAHIM MUSALIAR Vs. MUHAMMED THAMPI MUHAMMED IIYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 521 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Attingal alleges violation of Annexure-A judgment dated 15-11-2005 of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 16802 of 2005 by the respondent by preventing the petitioner (who claims himself to be the Receiver) from acting as a receiver on 28-8-2010.

(2.) THE aforementioned suit filed by the petitioner was for settling a Scheme of Administration for the Kabaradi (Shrine) (Jarum) in question. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, this Court as per judgment dated 15-11-2005 in W.P. (C) No. 16802 of 2005 appointed the petitioner/plaintiff as a party Receiver in respect of the kabaradi in question after noticing that during the Chandanakudam, huge amounts were received by way of offerings from the public at large at the kabaradi and, therefore, it was just and proper that the plaintiff/petitioner is appointed as a party receiver with duty to account for the income and expenditure. THEre is no dispute that thereafter as per the judgment and decree dated 17-7-2010, the Munsiff's Court, Attingal , dismissed the suit. THE petitioner claims to have filed an appeal before the Sub court, Attingal as A.S. No. 93 of 2010 and claims to have filed an interlocutory application seeking continuance of his receivership on the footing that he continues to be the receiver even after the dismissal of the suit. According to the petitioner, the respondent by obstructing the petitioner from acting as the Receiver on 28-8-2010 has committed civil contempt.

(3.) I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. The proposition laid down in AIR 1962 SC 21 and AIR 2005 SC 3011 is a judicially well settled proposition. It has been clearly laid down that the Receiver's appointment is co- terminus with the suit and that if the suit is disposed of then the appointment will come to an end. The further observation that the Court has power to continue the Receiver after the final decree if the exigencies of the case so require does not apply to the present case. The petitioner was appointed as receiver only pendente lite at a time when the suit was pending. Hence it goes without saying that his appointment was co-terminus with the suit. With the dismissal of the suit his receivership has come to an end and he cannot claim to be in continued possession of the suit properties in his capacity as party Receiver. If so, there cannot be any obstruction of the Receiver on 28-8-2010 as alleged. Admittedly, aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Attingal as A.S. No. 93 of 2010. He can only apply for a Receiver in respect of the property in case the ground for appointment of a Receiver are made out and in case the subject matter of the suit is in medio. That is for the appellate court to consider as and when an application is filed in that behalf. At any rate, there is no question of civil contempt committed by the respondent. These proceedings, are, accordingly dropped.