Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal arises out of the order dt. 14.02.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City Jaipur (hereinafter to referred to as "the trial Court"), whereby the trial Court has rejected the civil misc. application No. 13/2013 in Recovery Suit No. 14/2013, seeking appointment of receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC. The Court on 14.05.2013 had issued notice to the respondent for ascertaining as to whether the respondent was going to sell or transfer the property in question or not. The learned counsel Mr. Bipin Gupta has appeared for the respondent on the service of the notice to the respondent.
(2.) THE learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.K. Agarwal has submitted that though the suit was for recovery of money, the appellant -plaintiff had filed the application seeking appointment of receiver in respect of the office and factory premises of the respondent, as the appellant apprehended that the respondent shall dispose of its properties to frustrate the decree that may be passed in favour of the appellant. Relying upon the decisions of various High Courts in the cases of D.K. Raja vs. P.S. Kumaraswami Raja & Others, reported in (S) : AIR 1955 Madras 360 (Vol. 42, C.N. 95); Mulji Umershi Shah and etc. vs. Paradisia Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai & Others, reported in : AIR 1998 Bombay 87 and Gulamjan Khan and Others vs. Zainubunnisa Begum, reported in : AIR (39) 1952 Hyderabad 17 (C.N. 7), Mr. Agarwal has submitted that Court has ample power to grant injunction in appropriate cases even in the application seeking appointment of receiver. According to him, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent -defendant before the trial Court, the respondent be restrained from transferring or selling the property in question till the pendency of the suit. However, the learned counsel Mr. Bipin Gupta for the respondent while reiterating the statement made on behalf of the respondent before the trial Court submitted that respondent is not going to sell or transfer the office and factory premises of the respondent. He however submitted that no case for the appointment of receiver under Order XL having been made out by the appellant -plaintiff, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He also submitted that the appellant should file necessary application seeking temporary injunction before the trial Court, and that such prayer cannot be granted by this Court. In this regard Mr. Gupta has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Smt. Kalpana Kothari vs. Smt. Sudha Yadav & Ors., reported in : AIR 2002 SC 204 and the decision of Kerala High Court in case of Arun Agencies, Mattancherry vs. St. Antony's Oil Mill and Ors., reported in : AIR 1989 Kerala 312, in support of his submissions. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court it appears that the appellant -plaintiff had filed the application under Order XL seeking appointment of receiver, in the suit for recovery of money against the respondent -defendant. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order, mainly relying upon the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondent -defendant that respondent was not going to sell or transfer its movable or immovable properties till the pendency of the suit. Of course, the learned counsel Mr. Gupta for the respondent has confined his statement to the extent of immovable property i.e. the office and factory premises of the respondent only. In view of the said statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the apprehension expressed by the appellant does not deserve any consideration. It is needless to say that the respondent shall be at liberty to transfer or sell its immovable property with the permission of the trial Court. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.;