Short Note : 1. The appellate Court has passed an order by allowing appeals of both the parties and appointing Shri Narendra Kumar Paliwal, Advocate, Shivpuri as the Receiver and also ordering Shri Narendra Kumar Paliwal to open the lock of the stall, to take the possession of it and then take the possession of the goods in the stall and auction them and deposit the amount so realised in the trial Court up to 26-6-1978. The Receiver will get 10% out of this amount so deposited and whoever will be entitled to the goods in the cabin will get the amount so deposited. Mishrilal or anyone on his behalf will not take possession of the stall or of the Chabutara and will maintain the status quo. Mishrilal will give possession to the Receiver after opening the lock. The stall and the Chabutara will remain in possession of Mahabir Prasad. Held : It is very difficult to understand how such an order can be passed in an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 CPC. The principles for appointing a Receiver are quite different from the principles for grant of an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 CPC. No party has asked the Court to appoint a Receiver. The case before the Court was that there was a partnership business running and that defendant No. 1 was actually running the business. The document produced clearly goes to show that defendant No.1 was in-charge of the business. Then, instead of at the most, appointing him as a Receiver, to appoint a third party to take the charge of the business cannot be said to be legal. The property which was actuary in the stall also was not under dispute. So, when the property is not in dispute in a suit, the appointment of a Receiver to sell the property cannot be said to be legal. The Court has also injuncted the defendant from taking possession of the cabin while it has allowed the plaintiff to take possession of the Chabutara and the cabin. Virtually, by this order, the Appellate Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff when in fact, in the suit, there is a dispute as to whether the partnership has come to an end and whether the defendant has given the possession of the cabin, Such an order cannot be maintained. Revision allowed. Case remanded.