The appointment of a receiver requires clear evidence of mismanagement and a prima facie case; mere allegations are insufficient.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 03^rd day of June, 2025

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 28.02.2024 in I.A.No.7 of 2023 in O.S.No.100 of 1999 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Attingal. Appellant was the petitioner/applicant in the I.A. and the 6^th additional plaintiff in the suit. Respondents are the counter petitioners 1 to 5 in the I.A. and defendants in the suit.

2. I.A.No.7 of 2023 was filed by the appellant invoking Order 40 Rule 1 CPC seeking to appoint a receiver. The suit was filed in the year 1999 seeking declaratory relief concerning the Thrikkadavinkara Bhagavathy Temple, Ayiroor Village, Kollam District. A decree had been rendered in the suit earlier, which was based on concessions made by some of the parties. The appellant had challenged the decree before this Court and this Court had set aside the same, holding that the decree does not meet the mandates of Order 1 Rule 8 (4) CPC and had remanded the matter back to the Sub Court, allowing the appellant to implead himself as a party. Thereafter, the appellant, who had initially impleaded himself as an additional defendant, transposed himself as additional plaintiff No.6. The appellant had thereafter filed I.A.No.7 of 2023, inter alia, contending that the administration of the temple was not going on well, due to the poor management. For several years, there had been no effective accounting of the income and expenditure of the temple, offerings and other valuables. Though a committee had been there for namesake, there had been no meeting of the committee to discuss the management and affairs of the temple and its properties. Even the advice of the Chief Priest (Thanthri) and Main Poojari (Melshanthi) was not heeded by the present committee members and this was against the custom and rituals of the temple. The temple committee used to collect huge amounts from the public in the guise of celebrations in the temple, but there has been no accounting of the amounts so collected by the committee. Poojas had allegedly been thwarted by the committee members for their benefit and the properties of the temple were not being properly managed and were on the verge of peril. Thus the appellant sought to remove the present committee members from the administration of the temple and to appoint a receiver for the proper management, protection, preservation and improvement of the temple, otherwise, the present committee members will cause irreparable mischief to the temple and its properties. The said I.A. was dismissed by the Sub Court, inter alia, holding that it had been filed without averring any specific instances that would justify the appointment of a receiver which is a drastic remedy and that the appellant had failed to apprise the court that he had any bona fides. This FAO is filed challenging the said order.

3. The appellant has also filed an amendment application I.A.No.13 of 2023 in the O.S., which was dismissed by the Sub Court inter alia holding that a transposed plaintiff has no authority to amend the plaint. The appellant has challenged the said order separately before this Court by filing O.P.(C) No.1717 of 2024, which was heard along with this FAO and is disposed of vide a separate judgment.

4. This Court had admitted the FAO and had on 10.07.2024 directed the parties to maintain status quo. A mediated settlement was attempted through the Mediation Centre attached to this Court, which did not fructify due to non-appearance of some of the respondents and the mediator submitted a report dated 24.07.2024, stating the same. I.A.No.1 of 2025 dated 08.01.2025 was filed by the appellant seeking a temporary injunc