Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 16.03.2011, in O.S.No.15 of 2008 on the file of the Agent to the Government at Khammam. The petitioner is a third party to the above-mentioned suit filed by respondent No.1 for cancellation of alleged sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. Nearly three years after the filing of the suit, the Agent to the Government at Khammam has passed the impugned order appointing the Tahsildar, Chandrugonda, as a Receiver to get the produce deposited under Rule 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 (for short ‘the Rules’), read with Order 40 Rule 1 of C.P.C. with further direction to enforce the performance of his duties in attachment of the schedule property and report compliance. This order is questioned by the petitioner with the leave of this Court. The petitioner’s case is that respondent No.1 has sold the suit schedule property to him and that suppressing the said fact, respondent No.1 filed a suit against respondent No.2 without impleading the petitioner as a party to the suit. I have heard SriPalivela Satyarajababu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms T.V.Sri Devi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Rule 42 of the Rules empowers the Agent to the Government inter alia to appoint a Receiver to any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling the property, in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. This provision is akin to Order 40 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Both these provisions do not envisage any particular procedure to be followed for passing such an order. A Division Bench of this Court in Ravi Lakshmaiah V. Nagamothu Lakshmi and another ( AIR 1971 AP 380 (V.58 C 79)), while considering the provisions of Order 40 Rule 1 of C.P.C., held that even in the absence of a specific application for appointment of a Receiver, the Court has the power to appoint a Receiver where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, and that, if the facts and circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court justifying the appointment of a Receiver, it may do so suo motu even without the application of the parties for that purpose. Thus, the powers vested in the Court, which expression embraces the Agent to the Government into its fold, are wide for appointment of a Receiver. But, such wide powers should always be exercised in a very discreet and judicious manner and for the reasons to be recorded. The expression “where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient”, in Order 40 Rule 1 of C.P.C., imposes an obligation on the Court to record its satisfaction that appointment of a Receiver is just and convenient. Such satisfaction should be supported by proper and convincing reasons. Lest, there is every possibility of the Court acting in a highly subjective manner, abusing the discretion vested in it. A perusal of the order under revision shows that neither a finding is recorded about the facts and circumstances justifying the appointment of a Receiver nor any reasons for such appointment have been recorded, except stating that after examination of the material papers filed and available on record and after hearing the case, the same was being passed. Even respondent No.2, who is the defendant in the suit, is not shown to have been heard before passing the said order. The entire procedure followed by the Agent to the Government at Khammam is, thus, patently erroneous and unsustainable. For the above-mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside. Since the suit is of the year 2008, the Agent to the Government at Khammam, is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4979 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.