IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33842 of 2008(D)
1. K.Y.THOMASKUTTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHIJU THOMAS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C)No.33842 of 2008 D
--------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.149/07 on
the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Punalur. He filed
the suit (Exhibit P2 is the plaint) for a decree
restraining the defendant from trespassing into the
scheduled property and from slaughter tapping the
rubber trees and from cutting and removing those
trees on the basis of Exhibit P1 agreement for the
reason that the period mentioned in the agreement
has expired. In other words, the stand taken by
the plaintiff is that after the period mentioned in
Exhibit P1 agreement the defendant is not entitled
to enter into the estate and cut and remove the
rubber trees given for slaughter tapping as per
Exhibit P1 agreement. The learned Munsiff, vide
Exhibit P4 order passed on Exhibit P3 application
for appointment of a receiver, to dispose off the
rubber trees in the property as per the market
price and to deposit the sale proceeds in court
WPC 33842/08 2
allowed the prayer and receiver was appointed to
slaughter tap the rubber trees standing within the
scheduled property and to sell the same at the
market price within a period of one month and to
deposit the sale proceeds before the court and
directed further that the receiver shall furnish
security for an amount of Rs.60,000/- for the due
compliance of the duties as enjoined upon him.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner,
highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner,
that the petitioner was under the impression that a
third party receiver will be appointed for disposal
of the rubber trees as instruction was given orally
by the Munsiff to file a panel, from which a
receiver could be appointed. From Exhibit P4 order
dated 23.9.2008, it is, however, not evident. It is
seen that vide Exhibit P5 order passed on the same
day on the same I.A. respondent/defendant himself
is appointed as receiver with direction to furnish
security for Rs.60,000/- and Exhibit P5(a) order
was issued to the defendant on 4.10.2008 appointing
WPC 33842/08 3
him as receiver to slaughter tap the rubber trees
and cut and remove the same at the market price
within a period of one month and to deposit the
sale proceeds before the court. Till 4.10.2008, no
panel of Receivers was filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff. The submission of the counsel
for the petitioner is that no amount as ordered is
furnished as security nor has the defendant
deposited the sale proceeds producing also the
accounts thereof, though he has cut and removed all
the trees from the scheduled property. It is seen
that vide Exhibit P6 application dated 13.10.2008
the petitioner has moved for review of the order
appointing the respondent/defendant as receiver and
filed Exhibit P7 injunction petition restraining
the respondent from cutting and removing the trees
till orders are passed on the review petition. It
does not appear that any order has been passed
thereon.
3. However, it is worthy to note that even on
the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner,
WPC 33842/08 4
entire trees have been cut and removed from the
scheduled property after slaughter tapping and the
time of one month fixed in Exhibits P4 and P5(a)
have expired also as on the date of filing this
writ petition on 11.11.2008. Hence, no purpose will
be served by quashing Exhibit P5 (a) order
appointing the respondent as receiver.
Consequently, therefore, this writ petition
deserves only to be dismissed. If at all the
security to the tune of Rs.60,000/- has not been
furnished in compliance with the order of the court
below and sale proceeds are not deposited in the
court with proper statement of accounts, it is for
the trial court, which appointed the receiver, to
pass necessary orders in that behalf.
Hence, without prejudice to the petitioner
moving for appropriate reliefs, which he can ask
for at present, inasmuch as all rubber trees are
cut and removed, I dispose of this writ petition.
17th November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv