Whether court can suo motto appoint court receiver?

It would also be advantageous to refer to the decision of

this Court in Mulji Umershi Shah and Etc. Vs. Paradisia Builders Pvt.

Ltd AIR 1998 Bom 87. The question before the Court was whether the

Trial Court was justified in appointing a receiver while refusing to

grant temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and in absence of

any application for appointment of receiver. The observations of the

learned Single Judge of this Court, (as his lordship then was) are as

under:-

" 19. In my view, in suitable cases, the Court is not

powerless to pass appropriate order for appointment of

receiver without any application by any of the parties while

rejecting the application for temporary injunction. Such

power of course has to be exercised sparingly and in

exceptional cases where dismissal of an application for grant

of temporary injunction may lead the parties to take law in

their own hands and use their own devices either for

protection of unlawful possession of recent origin or for

gaining possession or such like circumstances. There is no

impediment put by the Code of Civil Procedure in passing

such order to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. Such

order may be imminently required to be passed also so that

possession may be made over to that party who is prima facie

entitled to possession but is deprived by unlawful conduct or

illegal act of the other party. An appointment of receiver can

be made on the application of either parties to the litigation

as well as suo motu and therefore, absence of application

shall not preclude the Court from passing such order if it is

just and convenient The cases may be varied and many. A

party may not have any right to the property and still comes

in possession of the property unlawfully and illegally which

may be of recent origin and on that basis may seek to protect

his possession by filing suit for injunction and by making an

application for temporary injunction. The Court may find that

such person has no title, right or interest in the property and

is not in lawful possession and, therefore, is not entitled to

grant of any temporary injunction. To avoid grave situation

where the parties may take law in their own hands even while

temporary injunction has been refused, in the absence of any

application, the Court may make an order of appointment of

receiver. Such exceptional order is permissible under law to

prevent larger mischief if it is just and convenient in the facts

and circumstances of the case. There is nothing wrong if by

taking such recourse the plaintiff who has unlawfully come in

possession recently is dispossessed during pendency of suit. In

suitable and appropriate case, if the trial Court appoints the

receiver while rejecting the application for temporary

injunction, it cannot be said that such power is without

jurisdiction…"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1189 OF 2014

WITH

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1789 OF 2017

IN

SUIT NO.443 OF 2013

Rajdai Nandlal Shaw  Vs  Mahendra Mangruram Gupta 

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :-26/11/2019.

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page