Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.5.1999 passed by 5th Subordinate Judge, Bhabua in Title Suit No. 100/31 of 1997-98, appointing plaintiff-respondent no.1 as the receiver with respect to Schedule-2 lands of the plaint. 2. The plaintiff-respondent nos. 1 to 6 filed Title suit No.100 of 1997 seeking a decree for partition of Schedule-1 properties. Schedule 2 and 3 are said to be with in Schedule-1 properties having Chak plots. It is the admitted position that one Ahmad Hussain died leaving behind his widow, Bibi Mariyani Mian, three sons Wakuloddin, Hakimuddin, Mohiuddin and two daughters, Samsu Nisa and Rabia Khatoon. The properties as per the shares of the heirs had not been partitioned by metes and bounds, although as per convenience, heirs were possessing lands over the property. Bibi Mariyani executed two sale deeds on 21.5.1963 in favour of Kashi Nath Singh, father of the defendant appellant and the amount of consideration was towards the redeeming amount of the Rehan deed executed earlier. Title Suit No.82 of 1952 was filed by Hakimuddin in the court of 1st Munsif at Sasaram challenging the Rehan deeds and Patta executed by Bibi Mariyani. In the said suit, it was ultimately decided that the Rehan deed and Patta were valid only to the extent of the share of Bibi Mariyani. The daughters of Ahmad Hussain had sold their shares of Hakimuddin who in turn sold the same to one Tapeshwar Singh and thereafter Mohiuddin sold his share to the plaintiffs Wakiluddin who sold his share to Kesho Singh and Tatkalo Devi. 3. According to the plaintiffs in the suit, the purchaser i.e., Kashi Nath Singh from Bibi Mariyani have sold more than her share which she actually inherited and by that sale Kashi Nath Singh did not get title over those excess share of Bibi Mariyani. According to the plaintiffs, the properties as mentioned in Schedule-2 and 3 are purchased properties of the plaintiffs and in Chakbandi also those have been shown in possession of the plaintiffs but the defendant had interfered and hence the suit was filed for partition by metes and bounds. According to the plaintiffs, the properties as mentioned in Schedule-2 and 3 are purchased properties of the plaintiffs and in Chakbandi also those have been shown in possession of the plaintiffs but the defendant had interfered and hence the suit was filed for partition by metes and bounds. While the suit had ripened then the plaintiffs filed a petition on 22.4.1998 for appointment of receiver in respect of Schedule-2 lands as contemplated under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Code, but the said petition was not pressed and the suit proceeded and evidence of both parties were closed and when argument was to be heard then the earlier petition filed on 22.4.1998 was pressed and after hearing both the parties the impugned order was passed. It appears that Schedule-2 properties was in possession of the petitioner-defendant and there was also a declaration of possession in favour of the petitioner under section 145 Cr.P.C. while the earlier suit was proceeding and that 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings, order was finalised after the earlier suit was disposed of. On the other hand, the plaintiffs claim is that the Schedule-2 properties are their purchased properties and the defendant- appellant is possessing the same illegally although Chakbandi was made in their favour. So there is fight between the parties with respect to possession and during the course of argument it can be understood from the trend of submissions of the counsel for the respondents that although they are not possessing the same but they get the possession by way of appointment of receiver. If he the motto then the whole intention behind the appointment of receiver becomes motivated one. Without going into these factual aspect it can be said that in a suit for partition a co-sharer might be in possession of more than his share. But by that alone he can not be ousted from the same by appointment of receiver because in joint property possession of one co-sharer shall be deemed to be possession of other co-sharers also and when the suit has been filed for partition by metes and bounds and when the suit has come to a situation of disposal then perhaps this appointment of receiver at that stage should not be there which may arise more complications in disposal of the suit because a party to the proceeding has been appointed as a receiver by the impugned order. In that view of the position and circumstances, I feel that the learned court below did not at all consider the position and circumstances where he should avoke his jurisdiction under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Code. The intention of the legislature regarding the appointment of receiver would rather be frustrated if it is being used during the fag end of trial of suit. 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the learned Sub-Judge is hereby asked to dispose of the title suit within the time frame of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order by either of the parties or communication to the court below. 5. The learned court below shall maintain the time framed without going for any unnecessary adjournments or giving laxity to submit to dilatory tactics in disposal of the suit. If one party shows his reluctance then court shall be at liberty to hear the argument of one party alone then dispose of the suit. 6. It is further being made clear that if for any unforeseen reason, there becomes delay in the disposal of the suit then as agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties the matter of receiver may be afresh reconsidered in the nature and circumstances as then would be prevailing. It must be clear that this court has not given any opinion on merit of either of the parties in disposal of this appeal. Considering the nature and circumstances, no order as to cost.