The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the appointment of a receiver in Jaigurudev Dharma Pracharak Sanstha.
A Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Jaigurudev Dharma Pracharak Sanstha And 3 Others.
In both the appeals, the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura in Original Suit has been challenged at the instance of plaintiffs and counter claimants.
The grievance raised by the appellants is with regard to appointment of receiver to manage the properties and funds of ‘Jaigurudev Dharma Pracharak Sanstha’. For this purpose, whereas plaintiffs of the suit filed application 101-C, the defendants Nathu Ram Sharma and others filed application 431-C in support of their counter claim.
The application contained prayer for interim management, more particularly with regard to appointment of receiver.
The trial court has rejected the applications by referring to earlier proceedings held before this Court and making an observation that nothing substantial has been brought on record which could justify appointment of receiver which aspect is in the discretion of the Court.
Assailing the order impugned, Anil Bhushan, Senior Counsel, vehemently submitted that Pankaj Yadav, i.e the respondent no 1, has usurped the society and its properties without there being any authority vested in him.
By referring to proceedings of petition, he submitted that when the rival parties put a claim for Presidentship of the society, the Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 06.07.2012 recognising Pankaj Yadav as President.
However, the Court, having recorded a finding that the said order was without jurisdiction, decided the petition on 24.07.2012 observing that civil court would be competent to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, Original Suit was instituted and, during the pendency thereof, the order of writ court was challenged before Division Bench by filing Special Appeal, which was decided on 26.11.2012 making a limited remand to the writ court to hear the parties afresh before deciding as to what should be the interim arrangement and parties were directed to maintain status quo existing on that date till further orders of the writ court.
Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, writ petition was again decided on 23.08.2013 with the same observation that civil court would be the competent forum and the matter of making interim arrangement was also left open to be considered and decided upon appropriate applications filed by the parties.
It is further contended that in the light of the observations made by the writ court, the appellants filed a counter claim in the suit in 2022 and also moved an application 431-C seeking appointment of receiver which has been illegally rejected by the trial court.
It is further urged that finding recorded by the civil court to the effect that there was no evidence to establish a claim for appointment of receiver, is perverse particularly when, in the application, reference to the counterclaim was made which described various illegalities and misappropriation at the end of Pankaj Yadav.
Anil Bhushan refers to execution of certain sale deeds in relation to the property of the society/trust and also non-furnishing of accounts pertaining to the institution/society/trust. The entire thrust of Anil Bhushan is that once Pankaj Yadav has failed to establish his lawful right to continue with the management of the trust/society/its property, it was a fit case where receiver should have been appointed.
Having heard the counsel for the parties, the Court found that scope of the appeal is confined to examine the prayer for appointment of receiver.
The Court observed that,
In the case, the Civil Judge, after taking note of the proceedings before the writ court and the special appellate court, when proceeded to examine the prayer for appointment of receiver, observed that plaintiff had failed to file any evidence which could establish that defendant nos 1 and 2 were misappropriating the funds and resources of the institution for their benefits.
She also recorded that the defendant nos 1 and 2 had produced income tax returns etc on record and, as regards certain sale deeds, the same were executed in relation to properties situated in Ujjain and Madhya Pradesh regarding which the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction.
The court also recorded the absence of Uma Shankar Tiwari and by referring to the prayers made in the plaint as well as the counterclaim, it rejected the applications.
From overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find that in the counterclaim, possession over the property and managerial rights in the hands of respondent nos 1 and 2 has been admitted to appellants of both the appeals. The final relief claimed, either in the suit or in the counterclaim, is in terms of ouster of these persons from the management and a declaration has been claimed in favour of the plaintiffs or the counter claimants.
In such view of the matter, for the purposes of appointing Receiver, the plaintiff as well as the counter claimants were under obligation to establish beyond doubt that management of the properties as well as the funds was not safe in the hands of the respondent nos 1 and 2, may be that their authority to remain office bearers of the society/trust is under clouds.
The Court further observed that,
Further, considering the fact that at no point of time the appellants got any relief from any court except an observation made by the writ court in the first order regarding lack of competence in the Assistant Registrar to recognize the list of office bearers of 2012-13, as far as prayers for interim arrangement or management are concerned, the plaintiffs have failed up to the Court. The counter claimants are, in fact, sailing in the same boat insofar as the grievance regarding interim arrangement is concerned.
The Court does not find any reasonable justification to appoint a Receiver as it finds that when the appellants’ SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2014, what prevented them from approaching the civil court though the Supreme Court had itself permitted them to avail such remedy. For a period of eight years, there was complete silence and it appears that the counter claimants were banking/relying upon the remedies availed by the plaintiffs of the suit, who were pressing their prayer for interim arrangement but the same was turned down by this Court in 2019 as aforesaid. Even thereafter, for a period of three years nothing was done by the counter claimants or by the plaintiffs. Therefore, elements of “emergency, danger or loss demanding immediate action” are completely missing in this case.
“Though the Court may observe that merely because some properties of the trust/society are situated in Ujjain or other places of Madhya Pradesh, the same could not be a ground to reject prayer for appointment of Receiver, however, on complete perusal of the application for appointment of receiver as well as other findings recorded in the order impugned and following the ratio laid down in authorities referred above, this court is of the considered view that except making bare allegations against mismanagement and misappropriation of the properties and funds in the hands of respondent nos 1 and 2, nothing substantial was brought on record. Even the averments made in the counterclaim, aid whereof was taken in application 431-C, names of vendees have been disclosed but not of the vendors and other associated aspects have not been averred.
The Court is of the considered view that material in support of that prayer was lacking and, hence, without commenting upon the rights of the respondent nos 1 and 2 with regard to properties or the management and leaving all contentions to that effect to be raised during the course of trial, no case is made out for appointment of receiver at this stage,” the Court also observed while dismissing the appeals.