AJWEERA RAGHAVULU Vs. GUGULOTH RUPLA HIS LR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 16.03.2011, in O.S.No.15 of 2008 on the file of the Agent to the Government at Khammam. 2. The petitioner is a third party to the above-mentioned suit filed by respondent No.1 for cancellation of alleged sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. Nearly three years after the filing of the suit, the Agent to the Government at Khammam has passed the impugned order appointing the Tahsildar, Chandrugonda, as a Receiver to get the produce deposited under Rule 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 (for short 'the Rules'), read with Order 40 Rule 1 of C.P.C. with further direction to enforce the performance of his duties in attachment of the schedule property and report compliance. This order is questioned by the petitioner with the leave of this Court. The petitioner's case is that respondent No.1 has sold the suit schedule property to him and that suppressing the said fact, respondent No.1 filed a suit against respondent No.2 without impleading the petitioner as a party to the suit.

(2.) I have heard Sri Palivela Satyarajababu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms T.V.Sri Devi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(3.) Rule 42 of the Rules empowers the Agent to the Government inter alia to appoint a Receiver to any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling the property, in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. This provision is akin to Order 40 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Both these provisions do not envisage any particular procedure to be followed for passing such an order.