JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This is an application filed u/s 115 of the CPC (for short the 'C. P. C.') challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in Misc. Appeal No. 85 of 1998 2. The brief facts as per the petitioner, leading to this application are that the petitioner was declared as a public temple and its land along with suit land was declared as religious endowments of petitioner in O. A. No. 70/70 u/s 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. 1951. In O.L.R. Case Nos. 161/84. 185/84 and 186/84, Laxmikanta Nayak, Budhiram Nayak and Abhimanyu Nayak were respectively held to he bhag tenants under the petitioner in respect of the land measuring Ac. 6.38 decimals A.proceeding was 1 initiated u/s 144. Criminal Procedure Code (in short the 'Cr. P. C.') by the tenants -as 1st party against the opposite parties 1 to 7 as second party and ultimately it was found that the aforesaid tenants were in actual physical possession of the disputed land measuring Ac. 6.38 decimals belonging to the petitioner-deity. This order was passed on the basis of the judgment passed, in O. L. R. proceedings. Accordingly three tenants got back possession from the receiver, who was appointed during the aforesaid proceedings u/s 114, Cr. P. C.. Opposite party No.1 challenged the aforesaid orders in Criminal Revision Nos. 49 of 1991 and 92, of 1987 before this Court and this Court confirmed the order of the, Executive Magistrate and rejected the revision cases. As per the petitioner during the pendency of the aforesaid criminal revisions before this Court, opposite party No.1 obtained a registered deed of relinquishment dated 26-12-1988 from the aforesaid three tenants in respect of the total suit land measuring Ac. 13.06 decimals which is inclusive of Ac. 6.38 decimals of land. The petitioner inducted one Keshab Nayak opposite party No.8 and Kusadev Nayak, as tenants in respect of Ac. 3.52 decimals of land" which is under their actual physical possession and they are paying rent to the petitioner and have also supported the case of the petitioner in the suit. After the death of Kusadev Nayak, his legal representatives are on record and impleaded as opposite parties 9 to 12 in this petition. In respect of the balance Ac.. 3.16 dec. After the death of Kusadev Nayak, his legal representatives are on record and impleaded as opposite parties 9 to 12 in this petition. In respect of the balance Ac.. 3.16 dec. of land, the petitioner inducted opposite party No. l' s father as Bhag tenant and after him the opposite party No.1 is continuing as Bhag tenant. The petitioner filed O. L. R. Case Nos. 331,332 and 333 of 1996 against the aforesaid three tenants, namely Laxmikanta, Budhiram and Abhimanyu praying for their eviction in respect of Ac. 6.38 decimals due, to non-payment of rent. In that case opposite party No. l filed an application to be impleaded as party, basing on the registered deed of relinquishment which was dismissed. Challenging the said order, opposite party No.1 filed a writ application before this Court and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 and his six brothers filed writ petitions bearing Nos. 17089 and 17090 of 1977 challenging the order of eviction on various grounds and the said writ applications were allowed with the direction to the Revenue Officer to decide O. L. R. cases afresh. 3. The present opposite party No.1 filed a suit claiming title and possession on the suit land measuring Ac. 13.06 decimals with the following relief, inter alia amongst others: (a) In the circumstances be it declared that the plaintiffs and the Proforma defendants have right, title, interest over the disputed lands and also it may be declared that the defendant No.1 deity- has no manner of right, title, interest over the disputed lands. (b) The defendant No, 1 may kindly be permanently injuncted not to create any sort of disturbances over the possession of plaintiff and his other cosharers on the disputed lands in any manner whatsoever; (c) The possession of the plaintiff over the suit lands may kindly be confirmed. The plaintiff-opposite party. No.1 while claiming the aforesaid relief basing upon a relinquishment deed, also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. with a prayer to restrain the present petitioner from creating any disturbance in his possession. The present petitioner, the deity also filed an application under Order 40, Rule I, C. P. C. with a prayer for appointment of receiver in respect of suit land comprising Ac. 9.54 decimals. 4. The present petitioner, the deity also filed an application under Order 40, Rule I, C. P. C. with a prayer for appointment of receiver in respect of suit land comprising Ac. 9.54 decimals. 4. The plea of the present petitioner in the application for receivership was that as per the plaint there is keen contest on the question of possession of the suit property and when there is scramble for possession and as the petitioner claims to have in possession on the basis of certain documents the suit land is in media, hence it is appropriate to keep the suit land in custodia legis for the benefit of ultimate successful party. Moreover, the bhag tenants who were inducted over the suit land having relinquished their rights in favour of opposite party No.1 and discontinued the payment of rent to the deity, the property is in media. The application for receivership so filed by the present petitioner was partly allowed by the trial court, in respect of Ac. 6 38 decimals instead of Ac. 9.54 decimals appointing the R.I. Dahisara as the receiver. But the application for injunction so filed by the present opposite party No.1 was dismissed by the trial court. 5. The present opposite party No.1. i. e., the plaintiff in court below challenged the order of receivership as well as the order rejecting the application for injunction before the District Judge. Balasore. The present petitioner also filed a cross-appeal praying therein for appointment of receiver in respect of balance Ac 3.16 decimals of land. 6. The learned appellate court.after hearing the Misc. Appeal on the question of appointment of receiver, allowed the appeal and vacated the said older of appointment of receiver. The aforesaid order is under challenged in the present Civil Revision. The contention of the petitioner is that the learned appellate court has not passed any order in the cross appeal. Moreover, the order of the appellate court is the outcome of non-application of mind and non-consideration of voluminous documents placed before it. The petitioner's further argument is that the principle of "Pancha Sadaschar", as laid down in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty Vs. C. Thangavelu Chetty and Others is solely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and the appointment of receiver is required in the present scenario. 7. The petitioner's further argument is that the principle of "Pancha Sadaschar", as laid down in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty Vs. C. Thangavelu Chetty and Others is solely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and the appointment of receiver is required in the present scenario. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the findings of the courts are clear and unambiguous hence this Court should not entertain this application and the appointment of receiver which as one of the harshest remedies and in the present case it would harm to the opposite parties. He further states that a prima facie case for application under Order 40. Rule 1 has not been made out as it lacks fulfillment of the ingredients required for appointment of receiver. Moreover, in the guise of receivership the petitioner intends to dispossess the real owner to make out' different cases having failed to exercise right, title and possession in the case land in the proceeding under Orissa Land Reforms Act. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that there is finding to the effect that the tenants Laxmikanta, Abhimanyu and Budhiram Naik, who have allegedly relinquished their right of cultivation in favour of the opposite party are defaulters in the matter of payment of Bhag dues and hence are liable to be evicted from their parts of the suit property. To that the learned appellate court has come to the conclusion that if the tenant is liable to be evicted for non-payment of Bhag dues, he may be construed as tenant sufferance, but he, is still in possession of the property in question. So there is a clear finding that the tenant are in possession of the suit property and there is scramble far possession between the bhag tenants, plaintiff and the deity. In my considered opinion no, illegality can be attached to the order of appellate court which ultimately held that the property is not in medio and the order of appointment of receiver shall have the effect of depriving the persons who are found to be in possession of the property. Allegation of the petitioner that the appellate court has not dealt with the cross-objection so filed by the petitioner under 1 Order 41, Rule 22, C. P. C. is incorrect. Allegation of the petitioner that the appellate court has not dealt with the cross-objection so filed by the petitioner under 1 Order 41, Rule 22, C. P. C. is incorrect. As it appears from the judgment of the appellate court, the cross-objection was heard along with the appeal and rejected being devoid of merit. 9. In the result, the order of the appellate court suffers from no infirmity, no interference by this Court is required. Accordingly, the civil revision is dismissed being devoid of merit. Civil revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed