P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Siva Ram prasad, the learned Counsel representing smt. Vijayalakshmi, Counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Harinath, the learned Counsel representing the 8th respondent. ( 2 ) THE present C. M. A. is filed as against an order made in I. A. No. 124/2002 in I. A. No. 453/96 in O. S. No. 119/89 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali dated 26-6-2002. The aforesaid application was filed under Order 40 Rule 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "code" in short, for appointment of the Receiver to take possession of the decree schedule A and B properties to auction the leasehold rights for the year 2002-2003 and to deposit the sale proceeds into Court to the credit of the aforesaid suit. ( 3 ) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the 1st petitioner in the application and certain others filed a suit for injunction and separate possession of their respective shares and the suit was decreed. It was also stated that during the pendency of the suit, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tenali was directing the respondents in the application to deposit yield of 15 bags of paddy per acre and the respondents preferred an Appeal and this Court directed them to deposit the value of paddy as in previous years and if they fail to deposit, stay stands vacated. It was also stated that the respondents have not deposited for the year 1996-97 and hence there is no stay in force. It was also stated that an application was filed for passing of final decree and a Commissioner also was appointed for partition and though the lands were divided, the final decree could not be passed as objections were filed. In such circumstances, inasmuch as the season of leasing out had set in, the application was filed for appointment of Receiver to auction the leasehold rights of the schedule properties for the year 2002-2003 and to deposit the rents into Court. In such circumstances, inasmuch as the season of leasing out had set in, the application was filed for appointment of Receiver to auction the leasehold rights of the schedule properties for the year 2002-2003 and to deposit the rents into Court. ( 4 ) THE 1st respondent in the said application, who is the present appellant in the C. M. A. had filed a counter denying the allegations and had taken a specific stand that inasmuch as the trial is over and the suit itself was disposed of there is no necessity of depositing any rents. It was also specifically stated that the appointment of receiver for these years is neither just nor necessary and at any rate the provisions under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code are not satisfied and hence there is no necessity of appointing any Receiver. It was also specifically stated that in case the Court feels that the appointment of Receiver is essential, a specific direction may be given not to auction Items 3, 4 (a) and 7 (a) of A schedule, which was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 29-3-1996. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, tenali had allowed the said application appointing one M. L. Jagadeeswaramba, advocate as Receiver to auction the leasehold rights of decree schedule A and B properties for the year 2002-2003 and the Receiver s fee is fixed at Rs. 1000/- which can be deducted from the amount so collected as rents and the Receiver also was permitted to deduct expenses from the total lease profits and to deposit the balance of amount into Court. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. ( 6 ) SRI Siva Ram Prasad, the Counsel representing Ms. Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out both paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order in the present Appeal and had commented that none of the ingredients of order 40 Rule 1 of the Code had been taken into consideration and even without considering the main objection as the receiver cannot be appointed to conduct the auction relating to the items for which the suit had been dismissed, the learned additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali without applying the mind and in a routine way had appointed the Receiver. The learned Counsel also further submitted that the vacation of stay on committing default made by this court has nothing to do with the merits or demerits and making a decision on this application. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the nature of the order which had been passed by this Court. The learned counsel also had pointed out that the 8th respondent, the auction purchaser, is none bother than the brother of the 1st respondent in the Appeal and hence it is only a collusive game. ( 7 ) PER contra, Sri Harinath, the learned Counsel representing the 8th respondent in the Appeal - auction purchaser, had submitted that this practice of auctioning the plaint schedule properties has been adopted by the Courts for sufficiently a long time and absolutely there was no objection from the other party. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that for sufficiently a long time the properties were being auctioned, the learned additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali thought it fit to appoint a Receiver to auction the leasehold rights of the A and B schedule properties for the year 2002-2003 only. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the auction purchaser had taken possession and had spent considerable amount and to disturb such a party at this point of time will be unjust. The learned Counsel also had submitted that inasmuch as for the first time such objection is being raised for the items relating to which the suit was dismissed, a Receiver to conduct auction of the leasehold rights cannot be appointed, may definitely be considered for all future auctions, but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, it may not be appropriate to disturb the existing proceedings for this year i. e. , 2002-2003. No doubt, the learned counsel also had pointed out that there is some delay on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court. ( 8 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 9 ) AS can be seen from the material available on record, there is some dispute that relating to Items 3, 4 (a) and 7 (a) of the plaint A schedule properties, the suit was dismissed and as against the same, the appeal filed by the appellant is pending i. e. , a. S. No. 1829/96 on the file of this Court. It may be a fact that at some point of time, a receiver to auction these lands might have been appointed and specific objection relating to Items 3, 4 (a) and 7 (a) of the plaint A schedule had not been taken. It is needless to say that whenever a Court thinks of appointing a Receiver, the essential ingredients of Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code are to be satisfied. When for certain items the suit was dismissed and when specific objection was taken for appointment of the Receiver to conduct auction of the leasehold rights, a duty is cast upon the court to consider such objection and record a finding relating to the same. The mere fact that there has been some delay on the part of the appellant in securing the certified copies by itself may not be a ground to negative the relief to such a party. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Additional senior Civil Judge, Tenali, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reasons referred to infra. ( 10 ) IT may be relevant to have a look at the reasons recorded at paragraphs 7 and 8 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, tenali while deciding the point and the said reasons recorded are as specified hereunder:"it is an admitted fact that the agricultural season has set in. As can be seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner that the respondents have not deposited anything for the year 1996-97 and there is no stay and for 1999-2000 even though a Receiver was appointed to collect the rents as on compromise the lands were leased out and respondents 1, 3 and 5 have not paid the rent to the Receiver and that the reason for leasing out the lands has set in. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to appoint a Receiver to auction the leasehold rights of the plaint schedule property for the year 2002-2003. In the result, the petition is allowed and smt. M. L. Jagadeeswaramba, Advocate is appointed as Receiver to auction the leasehold rights of decree A and B schedule properties for the year 2002-2003. The receiver s fee is fixed at Rs. In the result, the petition is allowed and smt. M. L. Jagadeeswaramba, Advocate is appointed as Receiver to auction the leasehold rights of decree A and B schedule properties for the year 2002-2003. The receiver s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/- which can be deducted from the amount so collected as rents. The Receiver is also permitted to deduct the expenses from the total lease proceeds and shall deposit the balance of amount into Court. "in S. B. Industries v. United Bank of India, air 1978 All 189 , the Division Bench of allahabad High Court while dealing with relevant considerations for appointment of receiver had observed that in order to justify the appointment of Receiver, the plaintiff must establish a reasonable possibility that the plaintiff will ultimately succeed in obtaining the relief claimed in the suit and the requirement thus is that he must establish a good prima facie case and it may further be remembered that the appointment of a Receiver is, as a general rule, discretionary and not a matter of right and a Court will make an appointment of a Receiver with great caution and circumspection. In T. Krishnaswamy chettyv. C. Thangavelu Chetty, AIR 1955 mad. 430 , while dealing with the principles when a Receiver may be appointed, five requirements had been specified, which are as hereunder: 1. The appointment of a Receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court. 2. The Court should not appoint a Receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has a very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit. 3. Not only must the plaintiff show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but, he must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action and of his own right he must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. The element of danger is an important consideration. 4. An order appointing a Receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a de facto possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. It would be different where the property is shown to be in media , that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one. And 5. 4. An order appointing a Receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a de facto possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. It would be different where the property is shown to be in media , that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one. And 5. The Court, on the application made for the appointment of a Receiver, looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application and will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from blame. In Chavali Venkataswami v. Kotayya, 1959 (2) An. WR 407, a Division Bench of this Court on this aspect held that Ordre 40 rule 1 of the Code makes it abundantly clear that the Court would be justified in appointing a Receiver where it is satisfied that it would be just and convenient and what is required is that the Court should not merely exercise the power vested in it under this Rule in arbitrary or unregulated manner, but according to legal principles after consideration of the while of the circumstances of the case and the Court has a complete discretion in this matter. ( 11 ) IN the present case, a cursory glance of the reasons recorded will clearly go to show that the learned Additional Senior Civil judge, Tenali had not adverted to the real question which had been canvassed by the parties and the appointment was made in a routine way and hence viewed from any angle, inasmuch as the application was not decided in the light of the provisions of order 40 Rule 1 of the Code, I am of the opinion that the impugned Order- is not sustainable for the legal scrutiny and accordingly the impugned Order is set aside. But however, inasmuch as it is brought to my notice that from a long time the said procedure was being adopted, it is a fit matter where the matter has to be considered afresh in view of the observations made by me supra. But however, inasmuch as it is brought to my notice that from a long time the said procedure was being adopted, it is a fit matter where the matter has to be considered afresh in view of the observations made by me supra. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned Order made in 1a No. 124/2002 in IA No. 453/96 in OS No. 119/89 on the file of Additional senior Civil Judge, Tenali is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Judge to be disposed of in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties and after considering all the objections in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. ( 13 ) OFFICE is directed to dispatch the order at the earliest.