1. Dispute over temple management — Appointment of a committee as receivers under Order XL Rule 1, CPC — Challenge to the eligibility of advocates as receivers. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 839
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Ishwar Chanda Sharma - Appellant
Vs.
Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6855 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024]
Decided On : 15-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kartikey, Adv. Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. K.B. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Anand, AOR Mr. Vibha Makija, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, AOR Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Adv. Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kartikey, Adv. Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. K.B. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Anand, AOR Mr. Vibha Makija, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, AOR Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Adv. Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Adv.
The court underscored the principle that appointments of receivers in temple management should prioritize individuals with religious and administrative expertise over legal professionals to ensure effective governance and expedite resolutions.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XL - Appointment of receivers - High Court's order on management of temple administration was set aside, directing focus on timely resolution of a 25-year-old dispute. Court mandated that receivers should have religious and administrative expertise. (Paras 26, 29, 31, 32)
(B) Public Interest - The necessity for clergy over legal professionals in temple management highlighted due to longstanding litigation preventing effective control. (Paras 29, 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, with claims to manage temple affairs, contests recent High Court ruling that emphasizes appointing receivers with religious affiliations rather than legal qualifications, citing historical mismanagement. (Paras 5, 4, 9)
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found control of temple management resting largely with appointed receivers, which has exacerbated delays in justice and administration. The court ordered findings to be implemented urgently. (Paras 24, 22, 31)
Issues: The court addressed the qualifications needed for the appointment of receivers amidst ongoing temple management disputes and significant historical precedent. (Paras 25, 23)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for appointing receivers connected to the temple's history and spirituality, aiming to expedite unresolved legal matters while safeguarding religious tenets. (Paras 29, 24)
Result: Supreme Court modification of High Court's decision supported appointing receivers with relevant expertise while approving state intervention in temple affairs. (Paras 24, 25)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Eligibility of advocates as receivers — Violation of Article 14 — State's power to administer temples for public safety — Use of temple funds for infrastructure development. (Para 5 )
3. Receivership as temporary measure — Conflict of interest for advocates as receivers — State's obligation to ensure public safety and order around religious sites under Article 25. (Para 6 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 22 , 23 )
4. Receivers for religious institutions should possess relevant administrative and religious background — State may utilize temple funds for public safety infrastructure if land remains with the deity. (Para 20 , 23 , 24 )
5. State permitted to use temple funds for land acquisition — Trial Court directed to appoint a receiver with relevant religious and administrative background. (Para 24 )
6. Can practicing advocates be appointed as receivers for temple management?
While not statutorily barred, the court observed that advocates may have a vested interest in prolonging litigation to maintain control. For temples, receivers should ideally have administrative experience and religious leaning, preferably belonging to the relevant Sampradaya, to ensure proper management. (Para 6 , 22 , 23 )
7. Can the State utilize temple funds to acquire land for public safety corridors?
Yes, the court permitted the use of temple funds for land acquisition to ensure public safety and order, provided the acquired land remains in the name of the Deity or Trust. (Para 20 , 24 )
8. To what extent can the State interfere in temple management for public safety?
Under Articles 25 and 26, fundamental religious rights are subject to public order, health, and morality. The State is obligated to ensure safety and provide amenities to prevent incidents like stampedes, which justifies the implementation of development schemes. (Para 17 , 19 )
9. What is the intended purpose and duration of a receiver's appointment under Order XL CPC?
Receivership is intended as a temporary stop-gap measure to protect and preserve property during litigation, not as a permanent management tool to run institutions for decades. (Para 6 , 22 , 23 )
JUDGMENT :
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal before us has been preferred by the Appellant against the final judgement and order dated 27.08.2024 in Contempt Application (C) No. 4429 of 2023 (hereinafter "Impugned Order”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter “High Court”), whereby the High Court allowed the petition preferred by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, and set aside order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura/Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter “Trial Court”), and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
3. During the course of the hearing, this Court has allowed I.A. No. 15019/2025, being an application for intervention filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4; and I.A. No. 16856/2025, being an application for intervention filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma/Respondent No. 5.
4. Factual Background
4.1 The Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti, Bara Bazar, Govardhan, Mathura, is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, and was constituted to manage the affairs of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura on 18.11.1957.
4.2 The committee elections held in the year 1999 put a hiatus to the peaceful functioning of the administration of the temple, as it resulted in a dispute regarding the validity of two alleged elections held on 24.04.1999 and 30.04.1999. Consequently, Shri Govind Prasad Purohit (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 (hereinafter “Civil Suit”) seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendant/Respondent No. 5/Dilip Kumar Sharma from causing any hinderance in all types of management and operations of the Giriraj Temple. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant/Respondent No. 5 also filed two separate election petitions pursuant to the same, which came to be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.
4.3 Vide order dated 11.02.2000, the Prescribed Authority held the election dated 24.04.1999 to be valid by which Respondent No. 5 was declared to be the Manager.
4.4 Aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court, being WP (C) No. 9601 of 2000, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2006 on the ground of being infructuous.
4.5 Consequently, the Plaintiff passed away in 2006, and his son Jitendra Prasad Purohit (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) moved an application seeking to be impleaded in the Civil Suit, and setting up his claim to be appointed as Manager of Committee of Management.
4.6 Vide order dated 30.07.2021, the Trial Court in the Civil Suit appointed Shri Nand Kishore Upadhyay, Advocate as Receiver of the temple, who was also the advocate representing the Plaintiff in the Civil Suit.
4.7 Respondent No. 5 preferred a Writ Petition, being No. 4468 of 2021, against the order dated 30.07.2021 and the appointment of an advocate as the receiver. Vide order dated 23.11.2021, the High Court set aside the order dated 30.07.2021 with the consent of the parties, and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
4.8 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Trial Court decided the application for appointment of Receiver and appointed a Seven Member Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”), which included 3 lawyers. While deciding the constitution of the Committee, Respondent No. 1 herein had made an application before the Trial Court expressing his desire to be appointed. However, Respondent No. 1 did not find mention in the Committee on account of him being in government service and being unable to devote his time sufficiently to the temple management. Pertinently, the Appellant herein was appointed as a member of the said Committee.
4.9 Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 preferred a Contempt Petition, being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4429/2023, for prosecuting and punishing the Ld. Civil Judge/Respondent No. 3 for her wilful disobedience of the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the High
