ORDER Misc.Case No.914 of 2002 26.8.2003 — Heard. 2. In this application under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C., plaintiff-appellants pray for appointment of receiver of the suit land measuring an area of Ac.7.91 decimals. 3. On a bare reading of the provision in Order 40 Rule 1, C.P.C., it is clear that the matter relating to appointment of receiver is purely at the discretion of the Court. It is the well accepted principle that such discretion should be exercised judi¬ciously and not arbitrarily. Therefore, from the facts and cir¬cumstances, available to it, a Court shall consider whether it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver for the subject matter of dispute. In that context, it is to be considered, if the party applying for appointment of receiver has an excellent chance of success in the suit, there is danger to the suit property being wasted or mis-managed or the disputed property remains uncared for being in medio and that the person applying for the appoint¬ment of receiver has a better claim over the subject matter of dispute then the person who is in wrongful possession of the same. All such requirements to the extent of availability and applica¬bility are to be considered with due reference to the pleadings and the evidence available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners argues that appointment of receiver in this case will not be of any inconvenience to either of the parties, if the property shall be brought under receivership and every year leased to the highest bidder and that in that way the income from the suit property can be preserved in favour of the successful party in the litigation. The aforesaid argument has no backing law and equity in as much as an order of appointment of receiver will result in disposses¬sion of the party who is in possession. Therefore, without being satisfied about the existence of relevant circumstances as noted above, order for appointment of receiver should not be passed only on the ground of no inconvenience to either of the parties. 5. While expressing that appointment of receiver is a harshest remedy Madras High Court in the case of T. Krishna Swamy Chetty v. C. Rangavelli Chetti, A.I.R. 1955 Madras 430, propound¬ed five principles, popularly known as ‘Pancha Sadachar’ to be comprehended while considering an application for appointment of receiver. 5. While expressing that appointment of receiver is a harshest remedy Madras High Court in the case of T. Krishna Swamy Chetty v. C. Rangavelli Chetti, A.I.R. 1955 Madras 430, propound¬ed five principles, popularly known as ‘Pancha Sadachar’ to be comprehended while considering an application for appointment of receiver. Similar view is expressed by the said Court in the case of Muniammal v. P.M. Ranganatha Nayagar and another, AIR 1955 Madras 571. In the case of Rasi Dei v. Bikal Moharana and others, AIR 1965 Orissa 20, this Court has also held that in a suit for partition, the party in possession should not be evicted by an order of appointment of receiver unless reasonable circumstances are made out. 6. On a conspectus of the facts and circumstances put forth before this Court it appears that in the concurrent im¬pugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below they have declined to grant a decree for partition in favour of the plain¬tiff-petitioner. Admittedly, petitioners have neither alleged nor substantiated ground of wastage and damage of the suit property in the hands of the defendants. They have also stated nothing justifying a ground of urgency. Thus, this Court finds it irresistible to reject the application. Accordingly, the prayer for appointment of receiver is rejected and the Misc.case is dismissed. S.A. No. 158 of 2000 Learned counsel for the appellant, prays that the appeal be listed for early hearing. Therefore, Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is to see that L.C.R. be obtained and the appeal be listed for hearing. Misc. Case dismissed.