Partition Plaintiff’s Receiver Bid Fails After Karnataka HC Notes Online Payments Went Undisputed

The petitioner brought a partition and separate-possession suit in O.S. No. 348 of 2024 and sought appointment of a Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the respondents were not paying rent or maintenance in respect of the suit property.

The respondents opposed the application and produced records indicating that payments had been transferred to the petitioner online.

The trial court rejected the application on 2 June 2026, finding that the requirements for appointment of a Receiver had not been established; the petitioner challenged that order by writ petition.

Order XL Rule 1 CPC governs appointment of a Receiver; the court treated mere non-payment of rent as insufficient, and stated that appointment is warranted only where the relevant statutory grounds are established, including a need to remove a person from possession or custody, or to commit the property to the Receiver’s possession, custody, or management.

The court also relied on S. Saleema Bee v. S. Pyari Begum and Another, cited as “ADR 2000 SC 3513 (1),” in support of the requirement to establish the necessary ingredients of Order XL Rule 1 CPC.

The application invoked Section 151 CPC, but the court’s determination turned on the requirements of Order XL Rule 1.

The petitioner’s allegation of non-payment did not, by itself, establish grounds for appointing a Receiver.

The respondents produced online-payment records, and the petitioner had not disputed those records by filing a rejoinder.

The affidavit in support of the application also did not establish the necessary ingredients of Order XL Rule 1 CPC, including a basis for placing the property under a Receiver’s management.

The trial court therefore correctly rejected the application, and the High Court found no ground to interfere.

The writ petition was dismissed.