Judgment Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.9.95 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1995, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has been pleased to allow the miscellaneous appeal and set aside the order of appointment of Receiver and thereafter remanded back the matter for appointment of Receiver to the Court of learned Sub-Judge Vlllth, Muzaffarpur, for giving fresh finding after hearing the counsel of both the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs-respondents filed Partition Suit No. 162 of 1986 seeking relief of partition of their half share in the suit property on the ground that the suit properties was acquired from the earning of the joint family. The suit was contested by the defendants- appellants on the ground that the properties in dispute were self acquired property. However, the plaintiffs suit for partition was decreed by judgment dated 14.12.94. Thereafter, a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs on 1.6.95 for appointment of a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner for preparing separate Takhta and another petition was filed for appointment of Receiver. The matter was heard by the trial court and the trial court by order dated 15.6.95 allowed the prayer of the plaintiffs for appointment of Receiver with respect to the suit properties. The said order was challenged by the appellants which was heard by the 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, who by order dated 14.9.95 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of appointment of Receiver. The learned Additional District Judge after setting aside the order remanded the matter back to the trial Court for fresh hearing. 3. Against that order the present appeal has been filed. 4. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellants that before the learned Additional District Judge there was sufficient material for finally disposing of the question of appointment of Receiver. He submitted that for deciding the point whether the appointment of Receiver is essential or not, the Court has to consider whether there is any danger of wastage, damage or apprehension of alienation of suit property from the side of any party and merely on vague allegation that there is apprehension of misappropriation of the property the application for appointment of Receiver cannot be allowed. Learned Advocate of the appellants submitted that before the trial court as well as before the appellate court there was no sufficient material to come to the conclusion that there was any danger of wastage or damage to the suit property or there was any apprehension of alienation of the suit property from any party and, as such, the order of appointment of Receiver by the trial court was bad in law and, so, the appellate court should have simply set aside the said order instead of remanding the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. 5. I feel myself inclined to agree with the argument of the learned Advocate of the appellants that there was sufficient material before the appellate court to finally dispose of the matter of appointment of Receiver instead of remanding back the matter to the trial court for fresh decision and, therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order should be set aside but as the appellate court has not given any finding on the question of appointment of Receiver and has not said that the order of the trial court with regard to the appointment of receiver is correct or incorrect and, as such, I have no alternative except to remand the case to the appellate court for giving his finding on the point of appointment of Receiver. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby allowed and the matter of appointment of Receiver is remanded back to the first appellate court for giving its finding on the question whether the order of appointment of Receiver passed by the trial court is legal or illegal? 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed.