High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Indradeo Singh vs Mahendra Singh &Amp; Ors on 6 December, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Indradeo Singh vs Mahendra Singh &Amp; Ors on 6 December, 2010
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   MA No.134 of 2008
           INDRADEO SINGH SON OF LATE GAURI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT
           OF VILLAGE MOUZA CHANDI MOU, P.S. SILAO, DISTRICT NALANDA
                                              .... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
                                           Versus
            1. MAHENDRA SINGH SON OF LATE PRAYAG SINGH
            2. SHASHI SHANKAR KUMAR SINGH SON OF MAHENDRA SINGH
            3. SHUBHAM KUMAR
            4. KAROO KUMAR, MINOR SONS OF SHASHI SHANKAR KUMAR
               UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF MAHENDRA SINGH GRAND FATHER,
               ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CHANDI MAU, P.S. SILAO,
               DISTRICT NALANDA AT PRESENT VILLAE ONMA, P.S.
               BARBIGHA, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA
            5. SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH SON OF LATE PRAYAG SINGH
            6. ANIL KUMAR
            7. SATYEN KUMAR, BOTH SONS OF SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH
            8. VIKASH KUMAR
            9. NIVASH KUMAR, MINOR SONS OF ANIL, UNDER GUARDIANSHIP
               OF SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH GRAND FATHER, ALL RESIDENTS
               OF VILLAGE CHANDI MAU, P.S. SILAO, DISTRICT NALANDA
                                      .... RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
                                         -----------

5. 6.12.2010 The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated

30.1.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge 1st, Biharsharif in Title

Suit No.13 of 2001, by which he has rejected the prayer of

the appellant/plaintiff for appointment of receiver.

On the earlier occasion when the plaintiff had come

before this Court, the matter was remanded for fresh order

on the point of appointment of receiver.

I find from the order impugned that the court below

has considered that the defendant no.5 is in possession of

the property and also considered that irreparable loss would

be caused to the defendant no.5 if a receiver is appointed. I

also find that the appellant-plaintiff has not made out any

case that there would be wastage of the suit property.

Therefore, I find no merit in this appeal. The same
2

is dismissed.

However, the court below is directed to conclude

the proceedings in the present suit with a period of one year.

It is made clear that none of the parties will be

allowed any unnecessary adjournment for delaying the

proceeding. In the interest of justice the order dated

30.6.2008 passed in this appeal by which the respondent

no.5 was restrained from selling any portion of the suit land

will continue till the end of the proceedings.

Narendra/                         ( Anjana Prakash, J. )