RABINDRA THAKUR Vs. CHANDESHWAR THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Order XLlll rule 1(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 5.10.2002 of the trial court, Sub -Judge, 1st East Champaran, Motihari, appointing a receiver in respect of agricultural land, which is the subject matter of a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in T.S. No. 135 of 1999, inter alia, contending that there is no case for appointment of the receiver.

(2.) IT appears that legal heirs and representatives of late Deo Nandan Thakur, the original owner of the land, forming part of the subject matter of the ongoing suit, have sold some part of the properties to the plaintiffs with some of the defendants. Defendant Nos. 78 and 80 are the appellants here who have purchased some of the agricultural properties of late Deonandan Thakur from original defendant no. 2, and have opposed the appointment of the receiver.

(3.) NO doubt, it is true that the appointment of the receiver, pending suit, can be made during the pendency of the dispute in a suit in terms of the provisions of Order XL rule 1 CPC provided the Court concerned reaches to the satisfaction that it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver of any property whether before or after the decree. The appointment of a receiver, no doubt, is a stringent procedure and appointment, as such, becomes more stringent in a title suit. However, discretion has been given to the trial court for the appointment of a receiver in given facts situation of a case. It has to be exercised keeping in mind the celebrated principles, as well as, the type and category of the dispute in respect of the properties in question. By host of judicial pronouncements, following aspects have been highlighted to be kept on the mental radar for consideration of the merit of an application for appointment of a receiver under Order XL rule 1 CPC: