D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the second plaintiff-applicant against the order dated 1-10-1999 passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, senior Division, Hubli on LA. No. 53 in O. S. No. 51 of 1988, being aggrieved by that portion of the order whereby the learned Civil Judge, while allowing the application, nevertheless, has declined to appoint an alternative receiver in place of the existing receiver who was removed. ( 2 ) IN this appeal, only the twelfth defendant is impleaded as a party respondent. The other defendants to the suit who are not family members but are impleaded as purchasers of some of the properties out of the joint family properties either during the pendency of the suit or earlier, are not made parties. ( 3 ) THE brief facts are that the appellant and her son and daughter had instituted O. S. No. 51 of 1988 for a declaration of their share in the suit schedule properties as against her husband and brothers who all constituted a joint family. ( 4 ) THE suit filed in the year 1988 has been going on and has reached the finality. It appears, during the pendency of the suit, an application was filed seeking for appointment of a receiver. The Trial Court, by an order dated 28-11-1989, had appointed a receiver and the receiver had been put in charge of the properties also. However, later on, the appellant applicant, noticing that the receiver was not rendering proper accounts and was not managing the properties in a responsible manner. had, by filing an application under Order 40, Rule 1 of the CPC, sought for removing the existing receiver. By the same application, the appellant- applicant had also sought appointment of an alternative receiver. However, under the impugned order dated 1-10-1999, the learned Trial judge, while allowing the application, being satisfied about the existence of grounds for removing the receiver, ordered for his removal. But while doing so, he declined to grant the request for appointing an alternative receiver. The learned Trial Judge, in this regard has observed that the conduct of the parties show that they are not very diligent in prosecuting the suit and further, that the suit having reached the stage of arguments, there may not be any need for appointing another receiver at this stage. The learned Trial Judge, in this regard has observed that the conduct of the parties show that they are not very diligent in prosecuting the suit and further, that the suit having reached the stage of arguments, there may not be any need for appointing another receiver at this stage. ( 5 ) SRI V. S. Gunjal, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Judge has committed an error in not only observing that the parties are not diligent in pursuing the suit, but also for holding that against the plaintiff and on such ground, declining to appoint a new receiver. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that the suit being one for partition, the matter may not reach finality immediately after completion of the arguments, inasmuch as the properties are all required to be partitioned by metes and bounds and these things will have to take place in the execution proceedings etc. , and herefore, there was dire need for looking after the properties even during such proceedings and when there was a receiver taking care of the properties from the years 1989 to 1999, to hold that there is no need for appointing a new receiver at this point of time, is definitely most unreasonable and arbitrary. ( 6 ) AS already observed, the appellant has impleaded only one of the defendants namely, 12th defendant as party to this appeal on the premise that the rest are not necessary parties, as no relief is claimed against them. It is no doubt true that an order appointing a receiver, is for the benefit of all the parties to a suit and for the purpose of preserving the suit schedule properties so that the same enures to the benefit of the successful parties to the suit. Notwithstanding, it is necessary that notice should be issued to the other parties to the suit also so that they will have an opportunity to submit to the Court whether they have any opposition for appointment of a fresh receiver or would like to suggest another suitable person to be appointed as a receiver. If any of the defendants would have remained ex parte, then that will be a different position. If any of the defendants would have remained ex parte, then that will be a different position. ( 7 ) IT is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that most of the contesting defendants i. e. , joint family members, have remained ex parte and the rest of the defendants are either tenants in respect of the suit schedule properties or some of them are purchasers of certain properties. ( 8 ) WHEN, as a matter of fact a receiver had been appointed in the year 1989 for certain purposes and for preserving the available properties to the benefit of the plaintiff and others and when by subsequent order, the earlier order appointing receiver is modified only because the person who had been appointed as a receiver was not discharging his responsi- bilitie' properly, it is just and necessary that an alternative receiver is appointed to continue to discharge such of those functions which had been entrusted to the earlier receiver. In this regard, the reasonings given by the learned Trial Judge that the parties are not diligent in prosecuting the suit and also the suit is likely to be concluded in the near future and therefore, there is no need for appointing an alternative receiver are totally irrelevant considerations and are not justifiable grounds to refuse appointment of an alternative receiver. The whole object of the provisions of Order 40, Rule 1 of the CPC which enables the court to appoint a receiver is to ensure that the properties in dispute are taken care of in the absence of a proper person to look after the properties and also to preserve the properties for the benefit of the parties to the suit. This purpose could be achieved only by appointing an alternative receiver and not by refusing to appoint a receiver. If none of the parties have objected to the appointment of an alternative receiver, there is absolutely no ground on which the learned Trial Judge could have refused to appoint a receiver. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside and the application filed by the appellant-applicant under Order 40, Rule 1 of the CPC is allowed in full. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside and the application filed by the appellant-applicant under Order 40, Rule 1 of the CPC is allowed in full. The Trial Court is directed to appoint an alternative receiver in place of the receiver who was removed by the Court, on issue of notice to the parties and after seeking views of the parties. The Trial Court shall thereafter take a decision as to who shall be the most suitable person to be appointed as an alternative receiver. ( 10 ) THE Trial Court shall give effect to the directions in this appeal to appoint an alternative receiver within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 11 ) APPEAL allowed. No costs. --- *** --- .