Trial Courts have jurisdiction to appoint receivers even on third-party applications if justified.

1. Petitioners have filed the present miscellaneous petition challenging order dated 10/08/2019 contained in Annexure - P / 16. By said order trial Court has allowed the application filed by strangers under S.151 of CPC for initiation of proceedings for appointment of receiver. Trial Court has asked the two receivers to remain present before it on the next date of hearing.

2. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that trial Court has committed an error in passing interim order dated 19/07/19. Earlier trial Court has passed an order dated 24/07/2019 while hearing of application under O.40 R.1 filed by the respondents. While deciding the said application trial Court has passed an order dated 24/07/2019 and held that the application for appointment of receiver will remain pending till final decision of this Court considering order dated 19/07/2019 in the M.A. No.3862/2019. Learned trial Court committed an illegality in entertaining the application filed by the strangers. Said persons are not party in the civil suit and they had not filed any evidence in support of their application. Trial Court has exercised its power arbitrarily and has also erroneously recorded a finding that application under O.7 R.11 is pending whereas such application has been rejected. In view of aforesaid submission, petitioners prayed for quashing of order dated 10/08/2019.

3. Considered the arguments of petitioners as well as the respondents and perused impugned order dated 10/08/2019.

4. This Court in M.A.No.3862/2019 has passed an order dated 19/07/2019 directing parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the suit house situated in Khasra No.2028/3 area 0.032 hectare at Village Beohari, District Shahdol and further directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession of appellants till the next date of hearing. Passing of the impugned order by the trial Court dated 10/08/2019 will not violate order dated 19/07/2019. In Miscellaneous Appeal No.3862/2019 parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of suit house situated in Khasra No.2028/3. Trial Court has passed an order on application of interveners for keeping the receiver present so that an account can be prepared regarding the jewelry which has been placed or hypothecated by the interveners to respondent No.2 and 3. The said order is passed so that the property of third persons may not be tampered with by the petitioners were have access to the suit house in which the jewelry is kept in the safe. Order passed by the trial Court does not violate order dated 19/07/2019. Trial Court is within its jurisdiction to pass the order.

5. Petitioners have also raised objection that earlier trial Court has passed an order dated 24/07/2019 while hearing respondents" application for appointment of receiver. In this application it has been decided by the trial Court not to pass any order and application is to be kept pending till final decision in the suit. It is argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that order dated 10/08/2019 could not have been passed in view of order dated 24/07/2019.

6. Trial Court has passed an order dated 24/07/2019 on application filed by the respondents, while order dated 10/08/2019 was passed on application filed by strangers who are not party in the suit. The order passed on 24/07/2019 will not stop the trial Court from passing order dated 10/08/2019 as parties in both the applications are different and order dated 24/07/2019 will not act as res - judicata. Court has power to appoint a receiver where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient. There is no bar that receiver cannot be appointed on application of third parties.

7. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there