The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 17/08/2023 in a miscellaneous appeal passed by the court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM. The Court observed that when the parties make out strong prima facie case showing damage, misuse, or mismanagement of the property in question, then only the Court could exercise its power to appoint Receiver.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners filed a representative suit with a prayer for judgment and decree to declare that defendants Nos.1 to 3 or any of their associates have no authority and right to take over the management of the institutes in question. In the suit, I.A.No.8/2023 was filed under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC praying to appoint any Senior Advocate of Udupi Bar as a Receiver for managing the affairs of the institutes. The Trial Court allowed the application. In appeal, the order of the trial Court was set aside. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the defendants/respondents herein who claim to be members of the Committee namely Shree Jarandaya Bunta Seva Samithi have no competence to deal with the management or any monetary issues of the Daivasthana. Further, he submits that respondents/ defendants have no competence to conduct Nemothsava. To protect the rights of the plaintiffs and also the devotees and assets of Daivasthana, the appointment of a Receiver would be necessary, till the questions involved in the suit are determined.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the present writ petition is filed suppressing the material facts. He contended that the trial Court during the course of the said order has observed that the plaintiffs have to first establish their right and possession in the Daivasthana and mere forming of Trust is not sufficient to prima facie believe that they have right in the said Daivasthana. When the plaintiffs have not made out strong case for appointment of Receiver, the Appellate Court is justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court, appointing Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC.
The Court noted that though the provision empowers the Court if it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to appoint Receiver and to confer upon the Receiver all such powers as to bringing and defending suits and for realization, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property and for the purpose stated therein, the said Power cannot be exercised lightly.
The Court observed that when the parties make out strong prima facie case showing damage, misuse, or mismanagement of the property in question, then only the Court could exercise its power to appoint the Receiver. The power to appoint Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC is the discretion of the Court and the said discretion is to be exercised judiciously, taking note of the facts and circumstances of that particular case and also the conduct of the parties to the proceedings.
The Court remarked that a party who seeks appointment of Receiver shall come to the Court with clean hands and the intention shall be bonafide and shall establish that the appointment of Receiver is to preserve and protect the interest of the subject matter of the suit.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the petition, held that in the case on hand, petitioners/plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and the intention appears to be not bonafide.
Case Title: Prashanth K Shetty & Ors. v Jayaksha K Suvarna & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. G. Pandit
Case no.: WRIT PETITION No.20764/2023 (GM-CPC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Pavana Chandra Shetty H
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Ajith Anand Shetty
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
