S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) APPOINTMENT of plaintiff 1 as receiver by the appellate Court reversing decision of the trial Court appointing defendant 1 as receiver is assailed in these two Civil Revisions by defendant 1. ( 2 ) BOTH the plaintiffs and defendant 1 made applications in the trial Court for appointment of a receiver. Taking into consideration the fact that (i) in a previous proceeding under the Arbitration Act defendant 1 was appointed as receiver by the trial Court and it was continuing in possession of the disputed property, and (ii) plaintiffs have been restrained in O. S. No. 1 of 1985 of the Court of District Munsiff Palasa in respect of the suit properties, trial Court appointed defendant 1 as receiver. Thus, application for appointment of receiver by the plaintiffs was dismissed and that of defendant 1 was allowed. Plaintiffs preferred two appeals. Appellate Court held that defendant 1 did not render accounts to Court while he was receiver in the arbitration proceeding and it did not pay the amounts due to the plaintiffs as per direction by the Court in the said proceeding under the Arbitration Act. It further held that the findings of the trial Court that defendant 1 was continuing in possession is not correct. Justification for apprehension of the plaintiffs that out of vindictiveness defendant 1 may act in a manner detrimental to the term of the leases with the Union Government to have the effect. On these findings appellate Court appointed plaintiff 1 as receiver. ( 3 ) AT the outset, I must express concern that both the Courts have unnecessarily delved into the principle of appointment of a receiver when both the parties are at one that a receiver to be appointed. The only question which was to be considered was the person to be appointed as receiver. Thus, both the forums have exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity in laying too much importance to the principle of Appointment of a receiver which was academic. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that in respect of the disputed property defendant 1 and the plaintiffs entered into an agreement in the year 1970 in which both parties had the right to determine the agreement on condition laid down therein. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that in respect of the disputed property defendant 1 and the plaintiffs entered into an agreement in the year 1970 in which both parties had the right to determine the agreement on condition laid down therein. A perusal of the agreement would show that defendant 1 was to take up the manufacture of salt in the disputed property although the business of manufacture of salt would be of plaintiffs and defendant 1. Thus, legally both are to be treated to be in possession. Factually, however, defendant 1 was in possession of the disputed properties and plaintiffs were entitled to some amount annually. Added to it, defendant 1 was appointed as receiver by the trial Court in an earlier proceeding under the Arbitration Act. The arbitration proceeding was held not to be maintainable. Even if the receivership is held to have come to an end, the property has not been taken out of possession of defendant 1 which continues in its hands factually. Added to it, plaintiffs have been restrained by the Palasa Court from interfering with the possession of defendant 1. No material has been produced before me that the said order of restraint has been varied. Order of restraint by a Court is to be given due respect by other Courts, so that there would be up conflicting decisions. This principle would not be applicable where the order is a nullity and as such is void. In the present case, no such submission has been made by either party. Therefore, appointment of any of the plaintiffs as receiver would be in conflict with the order of Palasa Court. On this short ground, order of the appellate Court cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) NORMALLY, a party to the suit should be preferred to be appointed as a receiver unless Court is of the opinion that it is incompetent or that Court cannot have effective control over such party receiver. Defendant 1 is a company subject to the control over the Companies Act. Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration whether a company which would be subject to control under the Companies Act should be appointed as receiver. Defendant 1 is a company subject to the control over the Companies Act. Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration whether a company which would be subject to control under the Companies Act should be appointed as receiver. If it finds defendant 1 being a Company should not be appointed as receiver, it ought to call upon the parties to furnish the name of an Officer of defendant I agreeable to be the receiver, so that such Officer can be appointed as receiver furnishing adequate security, so that interest of both parties would not be affected in any manner. ( 6 ) MR. B. N. Patnaik, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that there is allegation that defendant 1 has violated terms of appointment as receiver in not furnishing accounts and in not paying the plaintiffs as per terms of its appointment as receiver. Mr. A. B. Misra, learned counsel for defendant 1 submitted that the terms of receivership have been complied with. There is no material that complaint to that effect was made in that proceeding, so that there would have been proper and effective adjudication of the same. Such allegations ought not to be taken as a ground in the present case since in that proceeding defendant 1 could have explained the position and effective order could have been passed by the Court in that proceeding. However, I may make it clear that the trial Court can fix terms, so that the allegation of the plaintiffs if true would not recur. In case in the appropriate proceeding a finding is arrived at to conclude misconduct of defendant 1 as receiver, trial Court can consider the discharge of defendant 1 from receivership in case it appoints defendant 1 as the receiver. ( 7 ) MR. B. M. Patnaik, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that defendant 1 as receiver may act in a manner which would be prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs to give scope to the Union Government which granted the lease in favour of the plaintiffs to forfeit the same, so that defendant 1 can take the property on lease. This apprehension can be obviated in case it is made clear that the property is in possession of the Court and all actions of the receiver can be effectively considered by the Court if it is brought to the notice of the Court. This apprehension can be obviated in case it is made clear that the property is in possession of the Court and all actions of the receiver can be effectively considered by the Court if it is brought to the notice of the Court. ( 8 ) IN the result, Civil Revisions are allowed, orders of both the Courts are set aside and the trial Court is directed to reconsider the question of selecting the person to be appointed as receiver and the terms of such appointment. Both parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 16-8-1988 on which day trial Court shall fix a date for hearing the aforesaid question for effectively disposing of the application. No costs. Revision allowed. .