JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - This civil revision arises out of an order appointing Defendant No. 1 Bhabi Bewa as receiver in Title Suit No. 218 of 1964 filed by the Plaintiff Bhagabat Das claiming to be adopted son of one Bhagaban Das against his adoptive mother Defendant No. 1 Bhabi Bewa for, among other reliefs, setting aside a decree in T.S. No. 300 of 1954 on the ground of the alleged negligence of the Court guardian in conducting the said suit, for declaration of his title, partition and for other incidental reliefs; Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively the son and the widow of the brother of the Plaintiff's father Bhagaban Das and are impleaded as parties in the suit as members of the joint family. 2. The matter arose thus: On an application filed by the mother Defendant No. 1 Bhabi Bewa for appointment of the receiver to harvest the standing paddy crops upon the suit land and to give her the legitimate share to which she is entitled, the learned Munsif, Kendrapara by an order dated November 2,1965 found that it was just and convenient to appoint a receiver to harvest the crops fro the suit land; he directed that after harvest, the receiver would give - /4/ - annas share out of the same to the mother Defendant No. 1 and -/8/ - annas share out of the same to Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and keep the remaining -/4/ - annas share in the custody of the receiver; the Plaintiff would be entitled to that - /4/ - annas share in case he succeeds, otherwise it would go to Defendant No. 1. As regards the person to be appointed as receiver, the learned Munsif directed both parties to suggest names of the persons whom they wished to be appointed as receiver within three days from the said date (2-11-1965); accordingly on November 4, 1965, the Sarpanch was appointed as receiver on the said application of Defendant No. 1. 3. The Plaintiff filed an appeal being miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1965 from the said order dated November 2, 965. 3. The Plaintiff filed an appeal being miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1965 from the said order dated November 2, 965. By an order dated December 23, 1965 made in the said miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1965, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal with costs finding that there is no merit in the appeal subject to the observations made therein which were these: ... ... ... ... ... instead of appointing a third party as a receiver, Defendant No. 1 shall be taken as receiver of the entire properties and she should be in enjoyment of the net produce of her 8 annas share previously decreed in the appellate Court and there is no necessity to keep any deposit even the 4 annas interest as ordered by the learned Munsif in favour of the Plaintiff whose suit appears to be prima facie speculative.... It is against this decision of the learned Subordinate Judge appointing Defendant No. 1 as receiver with the said observations that the Plaintiff has filed the civil revision. 4. The Plaintiff-Petitioner's point is that the learned Subordinate Judge, while dismissing the Plaintiff's miscellaneous Appeal acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in appointing the Defendant No. 1 as receiver. Plaintiff's appeal was against the order dated November 2, 1965 by which receiver was appointed. As regards the personnel of the receiver, the Sarpanch as appointed as receiver on the application for appointment 'of receiver by Defendant No. 1 herself. Defendant No. 1 did not file any cross-objection or appeal from the order by which the Sarpanch was appointed as receiver. What the learned Subordinate Judge was to decide in the said miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1965 was whether or at all a receiver should have been appointed and whether it was just and convenient to appoint a receiver. 5. That apart, by the order dated November 2, 1965 by which the receiver was appointed, certain directions were given to the receiver regarding what share the receiver was to give to the parties after harvest of the crops from the suit lands. 5. That apart, by the order dated November 2, 1965 by which the receiver was appointed, certain directions were given to the receiver regarding what share the receiver was to give to the parties after harvest of the crops from the suit lands. By the said order dated December 23, 165 in miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1965, the learned Subordinate Judge while dismissing the Plaintiff's appeal from the order dated November 2, 1965 in fact made material changes in the direction with regard to the manner in which the produce from the suit land was to be enjoyed by the parties in that the learned Subordinate Judge directed that Defendant No. 1 be in enjoyment of the net produce of her -/8/ - annas share and that there is no necessity to keep in deposit even the -/4/ - annas interest as ordered by the learned Munsif by the said order dated November 2, 1965. It is not understandable why the learned Subordinate Judge while dismissing the appeal did in effect set aside the order under appeal dated November 2, 1965. 6. In this civil revision the impugned order of the learned Subordinate Judge of December 23, 1905 was sought to be supported on behalf of the Defendant-opposite party submitting that the said appeal was dismissed subject to the "observations" as quoted above. This contention is not tenable. It is clear that the learned Subordinate Judge had by way of "observations" materially modified or set aside the order dated November 2, 1965 under appeal which he could not do while dismissing the appeal. 7. In this view of the case, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated:December 23, 1965 is set aside round the order of the learned Munsif dated November 2, 1965-which, for the personnel of the receiver, is to be read with the order dated November 4, 1965-is restored. This Civil Revision is accordingly allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 17/ -. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed