ARTI SHARMA Vs. BELU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/applicant has instituted the instant application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of a Receiver qua the suit property. The plaintiff/applicant has in the relief clause of the plaint, as also in the application claimed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- against the defendants arising from the factum of hers having expended the aforesaid quantum of money in enhancing the value and utility of the suit property. The written-statement, as furnished by the defendant/non-applicant to the plaint claiming the reliefs aforesaid, hotly contests the said factum. Even the reply furnished by the defendant/non-applicant to the application at hand concerts to vehemently deny the relief as asserted by the plaintiff/applicant in the application.

(2.) The defendant/non-applicant admittedly, is the sole owner in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff/applicant has not been able to portray by sufficient, adequate or potent material of hers having a share in the suit property or hers being a co-sharer in the suit properly alongwith the non-applicant. Absence of proof qua the aforesaid factum inclines this court to not appoint a receiver qua the suit property, especially when an order qua appointment of a receiver by this Court is renderable only in the event of the plaintiff/applicant having fortifyingly established the factum of hers either holding a share in the suit property or hers being a co-sharer in the property alongwtih the defendant/respondent. In short the inability of the plaintiff/applicant to adduce the aforesaid material, prima-facie constrains this court to decline the relief as prayed for in the application. Besides the relief of appointment of a receiver qua the suit property having been canvassed in the application the learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant has prayed that the defendant/respondent be, till the adjudication of the suit, by this court directed to deposit a part of the profits earned or yielded by the suit property, in the Registry of this Court, as security for realization of a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- purportedly expended or spent by the plaintiff/applicant for enhancing the value and utility of the suit property. Even through, reliance for claiming the said relief is anvilled upon the evidence adduced by the plaintiff/applicant. Nonetheless, tenacity or probative strength of the said material ought not to be gauged, assessed or evaluated at this stage as it would definitely impinge upon and affect the merits of the case. That apart even if the plaintiff/applicant is able to render proof of tremendous probative vigour for constraining a decree being rendered in her favour qua hers being entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the defendant/non-applicant, now when in the event of rendition of a decree of Rs.40,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff/applicant, it would be executable or realizable against the suit property. Therefore, the aforesaid premature endeavor, at this stage, made by the plaintiff/applicant while relying upon the evidence adduced at her instance whose appreciation at this stage would be impermissible at this stage cannot be countenanced by this Court for rendering directions to the defendant/non-applicant to deposit a part of the profits arising from the suit property regularly in the Registry of this Court, as it would tantamount to fastening a liability upon the defendant/non-applicant even when the plaintiff/applicant may not have at this stage with all tenacity and vigour established her claim qua the suit property against the defendant/non-applicant. Application stands disposed of. The observations made hereinabove shall not affect the merits of the case.