IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of a receiver requires clear evidence of mismanagement and an element of urgency, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for appellants in FAFO No. 602 of 2023, Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for appellants in FAFO No. 297 of 2024 and Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Sahai and Shri Sukesh Kumar, for respondent nos. 1 and 2 in both the appeals.

2. By the previous orders of this Court passed in both the appeals, service of notice upon the remaining respondents has been held to be sufficient. Since these two appeals involve common questions of fact and law, the same are being decided by a common judgment.

3. In both the appeals, order dated 13.03.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura in O.S. No. 595 of 2012 has been challenged at the instance of plaintiffs and counter claimants. By the said order, four applications were decided after observing that all the applications contained identical prayer and were related to each other.

4. The grievance raised by the appellants is with regard to appointment of receiver to manage the properties and funds of 'Jaigurudev Dharma Pracharak Sanstha'. For this purpose, whereas plaintiffs of the suit filed application 101-C, the defendants Nathu Ram Sharma and others filed application 431-C in support of their counter claim. Both these applications contained prayer for interim management, more particularly with regard to appointment of receiver. Learned trial court has rejected the applications by referring to earlier proceedings held before this Court and making an observation that nothing substantial has been brought on record which could justify appointment of receiver which aspect is in the discretion of the Court.

5. Assailing the order impugned, Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently submits that Pankaj Yadav, i.e. the respondent no. 1, has usurped the society and its properties without there being any authority vested in him. By referring to proceedings of Writ-C No. 34416 of 2012, he submits that when the rival parties put a claim for Presidentship of the society, the Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 06.07.2012 recognising Pankaj Yadav as President. However, this Court, having recorded a finding that the said order was without jurisdiction, decided the writ petition on 24.07.2012 observing that civil court would be competent to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, O.S. No. 595 of 2012 was instituted and, during the pendency thereof, the order of writ court was challenged before Division Bench by filing Special Appeal No. 1375 of 2012, which was decided on 26.11.2012 making a limited remand to the writ court to hear the parties afresh before deciding as to what should be the interim arrangement and parties were directed to maintain status quo existing on that date till further orders of the writ court.

6. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, writ petition was again decided on 23.08.2013 with the same observation that civil court would be the competent forum and the matter of making interim arrangement was also left open to be considered and decided upon appropriate applications filed by the parties. It is further contended that in the light of the observations made by the writ court, the appellants filed a counter claim in the suit in 2022 and also moved an application 431-C seeking appointment of receiver which has been illegally rejected by the trial court. It is further urged that finding recorded by the learned civil court to the effect that there was no evidence to establish a claim for appointment of receiver, is perverse particularly when, in the application, reference to paragraph no. 28 of the counter claim was made which described various illegalities and misappropriation at the end of Pankaj Yadav. Shri Anil Bhushan refers to execution of certain sale deeds in relation to the property of the society/trust and also non-furnishing of accounts pertaining to the