Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1293 (AP)

Movva Venkateswara Raodied v. M. Subba Rao Died

2023-09-13

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
ORDER : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 17.08.2018 in I.A. No. 2064 of 2017 in O.S. No. 306 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 2. Originally the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No. 306 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, (for short “the trial Court”) to appoint a receiver to take possession of the suit schedule properties item No. 1 to 4 and manage the same and deposit the sale proceeds of the yielding crop into count and income in item No. 1 to 4 for which to preserve the suit properties and also the properties are not wasted or mismanaged. 3. During pendency of the above suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2064 of 2017 before the trial Court, seeking to appoint a receiver to take possession of suit schedule properties i.e. items 1 to 4 and manage the same and deposit the sale proceeds of the yielding crop into Court and income in items 1 to 4, for which to preserve the suit properties and also the properties are not wasted or mismanaged. The same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.08.2018, on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff neither choose to adduce any oral evidence nor marked any supportive document. Assailing the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 4. Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel representing Sri Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the respondents herein are committing acts of waste and mismanaging the administration of the suit schedule properties. She further submits that the Court below failed to see that no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties if the receiver is appointed for managing the suit schedule property. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant requests this Court to issue a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the present application afresh along with main suit. 5. Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel for the respondents did not refute the same. 6. Recording the above submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court deems fit to dispose of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. 5. Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel for the respondents did not refute the same. 6. Recording the above submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court deems fit to dispose of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. The impugned order dated 17.08.2018 passed in I.A. No. 2064 of 2017 in O.S. No. 306 of 2014 on the file of the trial Court is hereby set aside. Further the trial Court is directed to dispose of the said I.A. afresh along with the main suit i.e. O.S. No. 306 of 2014 within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as the original suit pertains to the year 2014. Appellant is further directed to raise all his objections before the trial Court. The trial Court is also directed to answer to all the objections raised by the appellant. Both the learned counsels are further directed to cooperate for the speedy disposal of the main suit. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.