LI Network
Published on: October 28, 2023 at 18:06 IST
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order removing a Receiver appointed for a Hindu temple, highlighting the necessity for strong prima facie cases of mismanagement or harm before such an appointment can be made.
Justice S.G. Pandit, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed a Writ Petition that challenged the Appellate Court’s decision to set aside the trial Court’s appointment of a Receiver.
The case centered on the power to appoint a Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which should only be exercised when there is a clear prima facie demonstration of substantial harm, improper use, or mis-administration of the property in question.
The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and sought the appointment of a Senior Advocate from the Udupi Bar as a Receiver to oversee the temple’s management.
Initially, the Trial Court had appointed a Receiver, but the Appellate Court overturned this decision. The Appellate Court held that a comprehensive trial should determine whether temple assets had been misappropriated, and a Receiver could only be appointed if the petitioners could substantiate allegations of misappropriation or harm to the Daivasthana property.
The petitioner argued that the defendants, who claimed to be members of the Committee known as Shree Jarandaya Bunta Seva Samithi, were not authorized to manage Daivasthana or handle its financial matters. They also contended that the respondents lacked the authority to conduct Nemothsava.
The petitioner maintained that appointing a Receiver was imperative to protect the interests of the plaintiffs, the temple’s devotees, and the temple’s assets until the legal issues raised in the lawsuit were definitively resolved.
However, the respondents countered that the writ petition had been filed with the suppression of critical material facts. The trial Court had noted that the plaintiffs needed to establish both their legal right and possession of Daivasthana, and the mere establishment of a Trust did not suffice to establish a prima facie claim to the Daivasthana.
The Court’s judgment emphasized that the power to appoint a Receiver is not to be exercised lightly. It should only occur when the parties present a compelling prima facie case clearly demonstrating damage, misuse, or mismanagement of the property in question.
The Court stressed that the appointment of a Receiver can have serious consequences and should only happen when a strong prima facie case has been established.
The Court further noted that the discretion to appoint a Receiver must be exercised judiciously, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the conduct of the parties involved in the proceedings. It highlighted the importance of approaching the Court with clean hands and a genuine intention to protect the subject matter of the suit.
Ultimately, the petition was dismissed in the case titled “Prashanth K Shetty & Ors. v. Jayaksha K Suvarna & Ors.”