Dismissed

Vedicherla Aruna v. Gonu Srinivasulu

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Mar 2021CRP/284/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to harvest agricultural crops. The Court held that since the petitioner plaintiffs were already in possession under a valid interim injunction and the respondents did not challenge possession, there was no emergency or danger to warrant ap

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed; the order of the lower court allowing no appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is upheld.

Vedicherla Aruna Vs Gonu Srinivasulu — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 284 of 2021

¶3

Between:

¶4

Vedicherla Aruna and others

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

and Gonu Srinivasulu and others DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 15.03.2021

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals? 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

¶11

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶12

¶13

UDPR,J CRP No.284 of 2021

¶14

*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶15

+Civil Revision Petition No.284 of 2021

¶16

% 15-03-2021

¶17

Vedicherla Aruna and others .. Petitioners

¶18

Vs. $ Gonu Srinivasulu and others .. Respondents

¶19

<GIST:

¶20

HEAD NOTE:

¶21

! Counsel for petitioners : Sri S. Subba Reddy

¶22

^ Counsel for respondents : None

¶23

? CASES REFERRED :

¶24

1. AIR 1978 (A) 189

¶25

1. AIR 2009 SC 1593

¶26

¶27

UDPR,J CRP No.284 of 2021

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶29

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.284 of 2021

¶30

ORDER :

¶31

Aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2021 in I.A.No.93 of 2021 in O.S.No.221 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore District, dismissing the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 10-B r/w 151 C.P.C for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to harvest the paddy crop raised in the plaint schedule property, auction the same and deposit the sale proceeds in the suit account, the instant C.R.P. is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

¶32

The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.221 of 2020 against the defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property. In I.A.No.492 of 2020 the trial Court granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. There upon, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.93 of 2021 with the averments that even after receiving the injunction order,

¶33

the defendants are trying to interfere with the agricultural operations conducted by the plaintiffs and with much difficulty, the plaintiffs could carry on the agricultural operations and the paddy is now ripe for harvest within twenty days and the defendants are proclaiming in the village that they will harvest the crop raised by the plaintiffs at any cost and if they are permitted to do so, the plaintiffs will be put to much hardship. On these pleas, the plaintiffs prayed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to harvest the paddy crop raised by

¶34

¶35

UDPR,J CRP No.284 of 2021

¶36

them in the plaint schedule property, auction the same and deposit the sale proceeds in the suit account.

¶37

The defendants filed the counter and opposed the petition. They contended that there is an injunction order in favour of the plaintiffs and they are supposed to be in possession of the plaint schedule land. Hence, in such circumstances, the petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to harvest the crop and deposit the sale proceeds, under Order 26 Rule 10-B r/w Section 151 CPC, is not maintainable.

¶38

The trial Court having heard both sides, dismissed the petition on the observations that the Court having regard to the record, granted ad interim injunction on 07.12.2020 and so far, the respondents/defendants did not file counter in I.A.No.492 of 2020 nor filed any application to vacate the injunction order and as such, the plaintiffs are presumed to be in possession of the suit schedule property. In that view, the allegations of the petitioners that the respondents are proclaiming in the village and they will harvest the crop is only an apprehension. When the injunction order is in force, the question of apprehending danger will only be a mere apprehension on the part of the plaintiffs particularly, when the respondents/defendants did not dispute the possession of the plaintiffs. The trial Court further observed that if at all the petitioners/plaintiffs apprehend any danger, they are at liberty to seek appropriate relief to harvest the crop. Without availing such remedy, they straight away

¶39

¶40

UDPR,J CRP No.284 of 2021

¶41

filed the petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The trial Court ultimately held that there were no valid reasons to allow the petition and accordingly, dismissed the application.

¶42

Hence, this CRP.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Subba Reddy, and having regard to the facts involved in this case, I find no exigency to order notice to the respondents. Therefore, this C.R.P is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶44

At the outset, it must be said that the order of the trial Court is impregnable, as there is neither irregularity nor illegality in the order impugned. As rightly observed by the trial Court, having found prima facie possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs emanating from the records produced, the trial Court by its order dated 07.12.2020 granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Subsequently, the respondents/defendants appeared, but they neither filed counter in I.A.No.492 of 2020 nor filed a petition to vacate the ad interim injunction order. Therefore, till date, the plaintiffs are under law, in possession of the plaint schedule property. Most interestingly, in the counter filed in I.A.No.93 of 2021 also, the respondents/defendants did not take a specific plea that they themselves are in fact in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs obtained ad interim order by placing some spurious and false records. Their only plea is that since the injunction order is in

¶45

¶46

UDPR,J CRP No.284 of 2021

¶47

favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, they are supposed to be in possession of the plaint schedule land and therefore, the petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner is not sustainable under law.

¶48

In the light of the above factual position, there is nothing on record to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a scramble for possession between both parties and none of them is in effectual and legal possession so as to warrant appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. It should be noted at this juncture that though the petitioners/plaintiffs have not specifically prayed for appointment of a receiver, the tone and tenor of the pleadings and prayer in I.A.No.93 of 2021 i.e., to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to harvest the crop, conduct auction and deposit the sale proceeds into Court would otherwise amount to a prayer for appointment of a receiver.

¶49

It is trite law that a receiver cannot be appointed for mere asking and the Court shall make careful exercise and convince itself that it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver. Since the appointment of a receiver amounts to depriving the possession of a party in respect of a property and makes the Court custodia legis , such drastic action should be undertaken only in suitable cases. It is true that the Court is not powerless to appoint a receiver in an injunction suit, however, it can be done only within certain parameters. In S.B. Industries, Freegung and others VS. United Bank of India and

¶50

¶51

UDPR,J CRP No.284 of 2021

¶52

others¹ , the High Court of Allahabad has delineated the circumstances under which a receiver can be appointed and held thus:

¶53

“7. Order 40, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. lays down that whether it appears to the court to be just and convenient the court may by order appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after a decree. In order to justify the appointment of receiver, the plaintiff must establish a reasonable possibility that the plaintiff will ultimately succeed in obtaining the relief claimed in the suit. The requirement thus is that he must establish a good prima facie case. It may further be remembered that the appointment of a receiver is, as a general rule, discretionary, and not a matter of right, A court will make an appointment of a receiver with great caution and circumspection. In a case where the remedy of the appointment of a receiver seems necessary to prevent fraud, to protect and preserve the property against an imminent danger of loss or diminution in value, destruction, squandering, wastage or removal from jurisdiction, the court may appoint a receiver. It may further be stated in this connection that a court in exercise of its discretion to appoint or refuse a receiver must take into account all the circumstances and facts of the case, the presence of conditions and grounds justifying the relief, ends of justice, the rights of all the parties interested in the subject-matter and the adequacy of other remedies .”

¶54

In Parmanand patel (Dead) by L.R and others Vs. Sudha A. Chowgule and others² also, the Apex Court dealt with the circumstances when a receiver can be appointed and observed thus:

¶55

1 AIR 1978 (A) 189

¶56

2 AIR 2009 SC 1593

¶57

¶58

UDPR,J CRP No.284 of 2021

¶59

“ 15. xxxxx A receiver, having regard to the provisions contained in Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure, is appointed only when it is found to be just and convenient to do so.

¶60

Appointment of a receiver pending suit is a matter which is within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. Ordinarily the Court would not appoint a receiver save and except on a prima facie finding that the plaintiff has an excellent chance of success in the suit. It is also for the plaintiff not only to show a case of adverse and conflict claims of property but also emergency, danger or loss demanding immediate action. Element of danger is an important consideration. Ordinarily, a receiver would not be appointed unless a case has been made out which may deprive the defendant of a de facto possession. For the said purpose, conduct of the parties would also be relevant.”

¶61

When the above jurimetrical jurisprudence is applied to the instant case, no doubt the petitioners/plaintiffs have not specifically prayed for appointment of a receiver, but as observed supra, the pleadings are indicative of such a prayer. However, since the plaintiffs by virtue of the interim injunction order are in possession and as the respondents/defendants did not challenge their possession and sought for vacating the interim order, there can be no just and convenient reason for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. No imminent danger of waste or damage to the subject property is surfacing on the record. In these circumstances, the trial Court, in my considered view, has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Not only that, the trial Court has aptly held that

¶62

¶63

UDPR,J CRP No.284 of 2021

¶64

if at all the plaintiffs are apprehending danger, they are at liberty to seek for appropriate relief to harvest the crop, meaning thereby, the petitioners can seek for police aid. If such a petition is filed, the trial Court shall conduct due enquiry and pass an order on merits.

¶65