JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this appeal, the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, removing the Appellant from the office of receiver of the suit house has been challenged. 2. A few facts may be stated: Khemjee was the common ancestor of the parties. He acquired the suit house in Sambalpur town. He died leaving his sons Walamjee (original Plaintiff), and Amritlal (original Defendant No. 1), as well as his widow Dhankuanr (original Defendant No. 2). Walamjee instituted Title Suit No. 67 of 1976 for partition against his brother Amritlal, mother Dhankuanr and son and daughter of his deceased sister Jasoda. During pendency of the suit, Walamjee, Amritlal and Dhankuanr died. Legal representatives have been substituted. The suit is still pending. 3. By order dated 13-1-1978 in Misc. Case No. 129 of 1976 the present Appellant who is the son of Amritlal and is Defendant No. 3 in the partition suit was appointed as receiver of the suit house. He was authorised to collect rent and maintain the property by paying necessary taxes and taking other necessary steps. He was required to submit accounts of the collection of the rent and expenses made for the property by 15th of each month of Court. In accordance with the direction of the Court, the Appellant, managed the suit house as receiver and submitted accounts from time to time. 4. Walamjee filed a petition on 10-4-1981 alleging therein that the Appellant was submitting the accounts without stating the details of the expenditure incurred by him, he was spending money out of the rents for his own maintenance, he was incurring loans and giving loans to others, the rent receipts and vouchers for taxes were not submitted along with the accounts, he paid different amounts at different times to his grandmother Dhankuanr, and so he abused the office of receiver. Therefore, he was liable to be removed and a fresh receiver should be appointed. The Appellant filed a counter in which he stated that he was maintaining regular accounts and furnishing returns to the Court giving details of the expenditure incurred. As he had no source of livelihood," he expended money out of the income of the "suit house. He denied that he misappropriated any amount or that he was carrying on the business of money lending. 5. As he had no source of livelihood," he expended money out of the income of the "suit house. He denied that he misappropriated any amount or that he was carrying on the business of money lending. 5. The learned Court below found in the impugned order that money was sent to Amritlal by money order, a loan was repaid to one Babulal and the Appellant spent amounts for his household and Court expenses. Most of these expenditure were without authority. Therefore, he held that the Appellant misused the office of receiver by disobeying the Court's direction and so he discharged him from receivership so as to appoint another in his place and to take detailed accounts for fixation of liability. 6. As enjoined by Order 40, Rule 4, CPC a receiver is liable to be penalised or even removed if he (a) fails to submit his accounts at such periods and in such form as the Court directs, or (b) fails to pay the amount due from him as the Court directs; or (c) occasions loss to the property by his wilful default or gross negligence. It is pertinent to note that there is no specific rule laying down as to under what conditions or circumstances a receiver has to be removed from office. But broadly speaking the above are the conditions for which apart from other penalties prescribed in Rule 4 a receiver may be removed from office. 7. In this case, the impugned order shows that the Appellant has furnished accounts from time to time according to the directions of the Court. The specific allegations against him are that he paid some previous loans spent money for his own maintenance and gave some amounts to his father when he was alive, patently for his maintenance. There is no allegation that he defaulted to furnish accounts or failed to deposit any amount despite direction, or by his wilful default or gross negligence, occasioned loss to the property, in this case the suit house. If he has otherwise spent the amounts received as the income from the suit house by way of rent or otherwise, the learned Court below is free to make any adjustment, settlement of claim or deposit But that obviously under Rule 4 cannot be a ground for the receiver's removal from office. 8. If he has otherwise spent the amounts received as the income from the suit house by way of rent or otherwise, the learned Court below is free to make any adjustment, settlement of claim or deposit But that obviously under Rule 4 cannot be a ground for the receiver's removal from office. 8. From the records, it is found that the litigation is continuing for over a decade and besides the desirability of its early disposal, the learned Court below shall pass a specific order as to what the receiver shall do and shall not do and what amounts he should spend or shall not spend or the f amounts he shall be required to deposit. This exercise should be done as early as possible not later than July 1990 after bearing learned Counsel for both parties. If this is done, it shall be easy fox the learned Court below to fix the liability of the receiver with regard to cash, because in a suit for partition, parties having shares ultimately be entitled to receive cash acquired and deposited as income of the suit property in proportion to their respective shares. 9. In the ultimate analysis, I do not find any merit in the impugned order and so it is vacated. The appeal is allowed subject to the observations made above. The L.C.R. be sent back forthwith. No costs. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed