Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1 (s) of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the order dated 11.10.2010 (passed under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC) and its consequential order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura in Misc. Case No. 142 of 1990 whereby the respondent No. 2, namely Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, has been appointed Receiver of the property that is subject matter of compromise decree in Original Suit No. 94 of 1923.

2. Sri C.L.Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri B.D.Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan and Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsels for the respondent No. 2 have been heard at length. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit has been exchanged between the appellant and the respondent No. 2. With the consent of all the counsels this appeal is being decided finally at this stage itself.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri B.D.Mandhyan. He submits that by the impugned order an application for appointment of Receiver has been decided hence it would be a case decided and is revisable under Section 115 CPC therefore, this appeal is not maintainable.

4. Appointment of Receiver by the Court has been done under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC. An appeal from such order is provided under Order 43 Rule 1 (s) CPC. The preliminary objection is therefore, misconceived.

5. A temple of Sri Dauji Maharaj is situate in Kasba Baldev, Pargana Mahavan, District Mathura. With the filing of Original Suit No. 94 of 1923 before the Sub-Judge, Mathura, District Agra a dispute was raised as to the right of management of the temple. A declaration and injunction of such right was claimed by the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed in terms of a compromise on 15.10.1924. The compromise was entered in the decree. A translated copy of the compromise is available on record. It has been stated that one Babu Baldev Bihari Lal was appointed the first Receiver/Supervisor after the suit was filed in 1923. The compromise had provided the manner and method of appointment/selection of the person who was to be the Receiver. In Clause 4 of the Compromise there were two eventualities contemplated and it was the Court that had to make the appointment/selection of a Receiver from time to time.

6. The exercise of this power by the Court under the impugned orders dated 11.10.2010 and 13.10.2010 is challenged herein. The Court has been appointing a Receiver from time to time for terms fixed by the Court ranging from one year to three years. The appellant has filed copies of some orders passed by the Court in the past.

7. Sri C.L.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Court has ignored as many as three applications filed by the appellants in the proceedings on the issue of Selection of a person to be appointed as the Receiver. He has alleged that the Court below did not even take the applications on record nor considered them hence the impugned orders were passed in a hurry and in a predetermined manner. According to him Clause 4 of the compromise decree was the only source for appointment/selection of Receiver and the Court could not go beyond the stipulations contained therein. He states that under Clause 4 the trustees of the temple are required to select a suitable person and the Court has no other option but to appoint the person so selected by the trustees. He points out that it is only when the trustees fail to select a person then the Court can make appointment of a suitable person of its own choice. According to him the selection of a person by the trustees can be unanimous or even by majority. He refers to the orders passed by the Courts in the past (Annexure-11) where the majority opinion of the trustees was respected and such person was appointed as Receiver by the Court. Sri Pandey inf