ORDER 15.12.2003 — Heard. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner this writ petition stands dismissed for the following reasons. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that peti¬tioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barbil. His case is that he was the recorded tenant of the disputed land as per the Sabik Settlement. A part of the suit plot was acquired by the Govern¬ment under Land Acquisition Proceeding and the remaining part should have been recorded in his name during the current settle¬ment but that was wrongly recorded in the name of the P.W.D. i.e., the State Government. On being transferred Joda Municipali¬ty has acquired possession and constructed shop-rooms and let out to tenants. Petitioner’s claim for temporary injunction is on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings but that was turned down by the Civil Judge as well as learned District Judge, Keonjhar in C.M.A. No.1 of 2003 and F.A.O. No.7/a of 2003 respectively. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing the aforesaid facts, argues that the Courts below have committed illegality by not considering the contention of the petitioner that if he is not entitled to a relief of temporary injunction at least an order for appointment of receiver should have been passed or else the rent collected from the shop rooms should have been directed to be deposited so that petitioner in the event of success, would have got the same. It is the settled principle of law that Court is to pass order of temporary injunction only n the event of petitioner satisfying the Court regarding existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience being in his favour and he is to suffer irreparably if the interim protection is not granted. In that context Courts below are consistent and concurrent that all such ingredients are not made out in favour of the petitioner. Such appreciation of facts and evidence by the Courts below is not found to be illegal or unjust. Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides for appointment of re¬ceiver when it appears to the Court to be just and convenient. Such appreciation of facts and evidence by the Courts below is not found to be illegal or unjust. Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides for appointment of re¬ceiver when it appears to the Court to be just and convenient. In that context it is the well accepted norm that a party in possession of the disputed property under a legal claim should not be ousted from possession by order of appointment of receiver unless it is proved on record that he is mismanaging or damaging the property to render it unfit. Thus, the claim for appointment of receiver or to direct the opposite party to deposit the rent is without any merit. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as noted at the out set, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Petition dismissed.