Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.2003, passed in Title Suit No. 5 of 1998, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-Ill, Khagaria, dismissed the petition of the appellant for appointment of receiver under the provision of Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the impugned order of the learned court below stating that this case is with respect to subsisting interest and special equity of the plaintiff-appellant as well as with respect to manifest peril and waste to the property due to attitude of the defendants and in that regard he relies upon three decisions: (i) in the case of Sudhansu Kanta vs. Manindra Nath, reported in A.I.R. 1965 Patna 144(DB), (ii) in the case of Sheonarain Jaiswal & Ors. vs. Shree Kripa Shankar Jaiswal and Another, reported in A.I.R. 1972 Patna 75(DB) as well as (iii) in the case of Tilak Chand Jain vs. Darshan Lal Jain, reported in 1985 Jammu and Kashmir 50(DB). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents no.1 and 2 claims that the plaintiff-appellant is no more a partner in the firm concerned as it has been dissolved as far back as in the year 1992 by a document signed by all the parties to the firm including the plaintiff-appellant. He further submits that Hindustan Petroleum Company Ltd. has issued licence in the names of defendants no.1 and 2 only and they are running business exclusively. 5. Considering the arguments raised by the parties and the averments made in the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the suit as well as the claim for appointment of receiver is pending since 1998 and for nine years no receiver has been appointed. It further transpired that during the pendency of the instant miscellaneous appeal, no interim order witth re-spect thereto has been passed by this Court. 6. It further transpired that during the pendency of the instant miscellaneous appeal, no interim order witth re-spect thereto has been passed by this Court. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that the suit, which is already nine years old, should be disposed of expeditiously so that respective claims of the parties may be decided finally as the order has already been passed by the learned court below directing both the parties to the suit to file their respective proposed issues, documentary evidence and list of witnesses. 7. In the said circumstances, this miscellaneous appeal is disposed of with a direction to the learned court below to proceed with the suit expeditiously without giving undue adjournment to any of the parties and to decide the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.