The appointment of a receiver should be based on the justification provided by the facts of the case, and the findings of fact by the lower courts should not be ignored.

ORDER :

Shah Mohammed Quadri, K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

Leave is granted.

2. The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Kerala in CRP. No.2629 of 1999 dated May 22, 2000. By the order under challenge the High Court appointed receiver for the school in dispute.

3. In this order the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. As the appeal arises out of interlocutory order, we do not propose to refer to the facts in any detail or express any opinion on merit of the case.

4. The appellants are the defendants in the suit for injunction (O.S. 179 of 1999) filed by the respondent-plaintiff in the Court of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor. The plaintiff filed I.A. 1090/99 under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for injunction restraining the defendants from entering and interfering with the administration of the school. This is a fight between the rival groups to run the management of the school. The Trial Court found the defendants to be in possession and management of the school in question and observed a change of management at that stage was not advisable. The Trial Court, on that basis of the said findings, rejected the prayer to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The position remained undisturbed in the appellate Court, as the appellate Court declined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and also declined to appoint a Receiver for the school. In the revision, against the order of the Ist appellate Court, filed by the plaintiff, the High Court thought it fit to appoint an advocate as Receiver instead of granting injunction in favour of plaintiff and thus disposed of the revision by the order under challenge.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. EMS Anam, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the appellants have obtained illegal possession of the management.

6. Inasmuch as both the courts concurrently found that the appellants have been in possession and management of the school, we think it was not appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court committed error of jurisdiction in ignoring the findings of fact recorded by the courts below and in appointing a Receiver on re-appreciating the evidence. In our view, in the very nature of the case, the appointment of an advocate as Receiver for running the school will not be appropriate more so when the facts of the case do not justify the same. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the order of the Ist appellate Court confirming the order of the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

No costs.