1. Rule. Mr.Shital R.Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.1,who is the main contesting respondent, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent No.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is being heard and decided today.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 7-7-2009, passed below application at Exh.19, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.101 of 2009, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Vadodara has set aside the order dated 5-6-2009, rendered by the Trial Court under application Exh.6 in Special Civil Suit No.326 of 2009, for appointment of a Receiver.

3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the material on record, are that the petitioner(original plaintiff) filed Special Civil Suit No.326 of 2009, inter alia with a prayer for grant of declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent No.1 is the original defendant No.1 in the suit. The petitioner filed an application at Exh.5, for grant of temporary injunction. Along with the said application, an Application at Exh.6, under the provisions of Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of Receiver, was filed. By order dated 5-6-2009, the Trial Court granted the prayers made in the application under Exh.6 and ordered the appointment of a Court Commissioner, who was directed to submit the report on, or before, 15-6-2009. This order was challenged by the respondent No.1 by filing Civil Misc.Appeal No.101 of 2009. The Appellate Court below has set aside the order of the Trial Court by passing the impugned order, hence the petition.

4. Ms.Nisha M.Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted:

(a) That the impugned order of the Appellate Court below is erroneous, as it has wrongly set aside the order of the Trial Court, ordering appointment of a Receiver.

(b) That the appointment of a Receiver, pending Suit, is a matter of discretion and in this case the Trial Court has rightly exercised discretion, while allowing the application of the petitioner.

(c) The petitioner has a very good prima facie case and is likely to succeed in the suit.

(d) That the trail court has also granted ex- parte injunction in favour of the petitioner and as the respondents have filed a false affidavit before the Collector, there is justification in filing the application for appointment of a Receiver and the above aspects have been ignored by the court below.

(e) That the judgments cited by the petitioners have not been considered by the courts below in their proper perspective.

(f) That though the respondents are in physical possession of the property, the petitioner has the paper possession, and as the appointment of a Receiver is necessary, in order to secure the interests of the petitioner, the impugned order, being erroneous and unsustainable in law, ought to be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Shital R.Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, while opposing the prayers made in the petition, has submitted:

(a) That the application under Exh.6 filed by the petitioner for appointment of a Receiver does not contain a single reason to show why the appointment of a Receiver is necessary. Similarly, the order of the Trial Court dated 5-6-2009, has been passed without issuance of notice to the respondents, who have not been heard before the application was allowed.

(b) The order of the Trial Court is cryptic, and contains no reasons whatsoever, for appointment of a Receiver. As such, it is dehors the settled principles of law, as appointment of a Receiver is one of the harshest remedies available in law and can only be resorted to in extreme cases.

(c) That the provisions of Order 40 Rule 1 can be invoked where it appears to the court that the appointment of a Receiver is just and convenient and in the present case, no compelling circumstances have been shown by the petitioner to necessitate the a