1. Appeal against High Court order appointing a Receiver in a property suit following the rejection of interim relief applications by the trial and lower appellate courts. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 488
2000(6) Supreme 349
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Saghir Ahmad & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Mahendra H. Patel -Appellant
versus
Ram Narayan Singh -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9205 of 1995
Decided on 2-3-2000
The High Court cannot suo motu appoint a Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC in a Writ Petition when no party has requested such an appointment, particularly if lower courts have already dismissed applications for interim relief on their merits.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 40, Rule 1-Receiver-Appointment of Receiver suo motu in writ proceedings-Legality of-Lower Courts rejecting prayer for interim relief pending suit and dismissing applications on merit-On writ petition High Court passing order appointing Receiver though none of parties asked for it-Improper-Power to appoint Receiver suo motu cannot be exercised in the manner it was exercised by High Court-Order of High Court set aside. (Paras 2 and 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
interim relief
- appointment of receivers (Para 3)
-
interim relief
-
civil procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the High Court's authority to appoint a Receiver suo motu in a writ petition against an order rejecting interim relief. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. The High Court lacked the authority to appoint a Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC suo motu when no party had requested such relief. (Para 3 )
4. Power to appoint a Receiver suo motu under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC cannot be exercised in a writ petition against an order rejecting interim relief. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, and trial court proceedings directed to be expedited. (Para 4 )
6. Can a High Court appoint a Receiver suo motu in a writ petition challenging an order that rejected interim relief?
No, the court held that the power to appoint a Receiver suo motu under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC cannot be exercised in a writ petition against an order rejecting interim relief, particularly when no party had requested such an appointment. (Para 3 )
ORDER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.2.1995 by which the High Court appointed a Receiver in respect of the property in suit.
2. It will be noticed that the trial Court as also the lower appellate Court rejected the applications of the Respondent for further interim relief during the pendency of R.A.D. Suit No. 579/1994 as the trial Court as also the lower appellate Court did not deem it fit to pass any further interim order and consequently the applications were dismissed on merits.
3. In our opinion, it was not open to the High Court in a Writ Petition against that order to appoint a Receiver in respect of the property in question under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC particularly when none of the parties had asked for it. The power to appoint a Receiver suo motu cannot be exercised in the matter in which it was exercised by the High Court.
4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 7.2.1995 passed by the Bombay High Court and direct that hearing of the Suit No. 579/1994 shall be expedited.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed
**************
