ORDER :

1. The writ petition at hands has been preferred against the order dated 12.01.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) vide which petitioners’ appeal against the order dated 10.12.2013, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) had been rejected.

2. The facts within the precincts of the legality of the order under challenge run as under:-

The plaintiff’s prepositus Kanhaiyalal filed a suit against the respondents for rendition of accounts and dissolution of a partnership firm, in which he was a partner. During the pendency of the suit aforesaid, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) seeking appointment of Receiver. The Trial Court appointed one Satyanarayan Vyas as Receiver, thereafter when the matter came up before this Court in Appeal No. 62/1984, one of the partner-respondent Mr. Deendayal Sharda was appointed as a Receiver. The said appeal came to be disposed of finally on 06.02.1984 with certain mandates to the Receiver duly enumerated in the order.

3. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners moved another application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code before this Court, which was registered as Civil Misc. Application No. 114/1994. It was inter-alia contended that the said Receiver Mr. Deendayal Sharda has failed to adhere to the terms of the order dated 16.02.1984 and has proceeded in a manner not conducive to his responsibilities as Receiver. This Court, vide its order dated 07.03.1999, disposed of the said application and permitted the petitioners to move the trial court, with the following observations:-

“As regards the removal of Shri Deen Dayal as a receiver and appointment of a fresh receiver, the learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant be permitted to make a prayer in this regard before the trial court. Learned counsel for the non-applicant does not object to this prayer and he agrees that the application for removal of non-applicant from the post of receiver as well as the application for enforcement of the order of the Court under Rule 4 of Order 40 C.P.C. may be moved before the trial court and the same may be disposed of in accordance with law.

The application is disposed of accordingly.”

4. Subsequent to the above order dated 07.05.1999, the petitioners moved an application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the trial court with assertions that the respondent-Receiver Deendayal Sharda has not properly maintained the machinery and building of the partnership firm and as a matter of fact, has closed the business and removed the machinery. It was also alleged that instead of carrying on the business of the firm, the Receiver has let out the property unauthorisedly and due to which, the property belonging to the firm is likely to be taken over by RIICO-the lessor, which has initiated proceedings for eviction of the firm/tenants.

5. The respondent-Receiver filed reply to the said application; denied the allegations levelled therein and requested the trial court to reject the petitioners’ application for substitution of the Receiver. The subject application, filed under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code was however rejected by the trial court, vide its order dated 10.12.2013. While rejecting the application for substitution of the Receiver, the trial court observed that the Receiver has not committed any irregularly in constructing godown etc. letting out or in changing the nature of the property. The trial court has held that the Receiver was given the machinery and factory on rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month, and since such amount has been deposited regularly no breach can be found. The trial court recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to prove that the Receiver has acted beyond the terms of his a