JUDGMENT S.R. Singh, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2.4.1990 (Annexure XI) passed by the v. Addl. District Judge, Azamgarh disposing of certain applications filed in the suit by the petitioner for permanent injunction, pendentelite and future mesne profits and partition in the alternative in respect of a cinema building; the machinery and the partnership business. 2. It appears that the learned lower court by its order dated 20.3.1988 appointed the Tahsildar Larganj District Azamgarh as receiver empowered to manage, protect and improve the suit property known as Smart Chhitra Mandir including the Cinema business. He was required to submit weekly statement of account, assets and liabilities etc. Durga Sahu preferred appeal against the said order. A bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal appointed Durga Sahuy as receiver vide order dated 21.5.1988. The petitioner moved application for removal of Durga Sahu. The application was allowed vide order of the Civil Judge dated 11.5.1989 and Durga Sahuy was replaced by Sri Krishna Murari Singh Advocate. The said order was, however, set aside by the High Court's order dated 9.1.1990 with a direction to decide the application afresh. Thereafter by a fresh order dated 24.2.1990 Sri Shobh Nath Yadav the Chief Revenue Officer, Azamgarh, was appointed Receiver in place of Krishna Murari Singh Advocate. The petitioner moved an application on 24.3.1990 for a direction to Durga Sahu to submit statement of Account before the Court for the period he worked as Receiver and to deposit Rs. 7 lacs the alleged loss to the business due to alleged misappropriation of suit property by him during the period he was the Receiver. This application was moved under Order 40 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner moved yet another application dated 27.3.1990 praying therein That for the reasons stated hereinabove the applicant most humbly and most earnestly prays that applications Nos. 461-C-2, 477-C-2, 592-C-2, 593-C-2, may kindly be taken up for hearing and the order passed to the Ex-Receiver regarding deposit of sums in his hand be implemented and the justice be done. Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said application dated 27.3.1990 being relevant are reproduced below: 3. 461-C-2, 477-C-2, 592-C-2, 593-C-2, may kindly be taken up for hearing and the order passed to the Ex-Receiver regarding deposit of sums in his hand be implemented and the justice be done. Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said application dated 27.3.1990 being relevant are reproduced below: 3. That it would be relevant and important when the said defendant Receiver Durga Sahu took over the office movable as cash in hand as was Rs. 1,09,832.95 paise and at Bank was Rs. 1,47,732.80 p. as would be clear by the perusal of paper Nos. 221-C-1 and 284-C-1 respectively. 4. That the removed Receiver Durga Sahu has not accounted so far the cash balance Rs. 1,09,832.95 p. vide 221-C-1 and Rs. 1,84,725.30 p. vide paper No. 405-C-2. 5. That on 11.5.1989 when the removed Receiver gave up the charge and handed over the same to the then appointed Receiver, K.M. Singh. Advocate the Receiver retained a balance of Rs. 1,84,725.30 p. collected in his hands during his tenureship of his Receivership as per his own admissions made and signed vide paper No. 405-C-2. 6. That the Ex-Receiver Durga Sahu was specifically ordered by the court to deposit all the entire amount of the disputed business in his hands and report to the court, by its order 11.5.1989. But the Receiver has not observed and honoured the said order of the court so far. By the order impugned in the petition, the application was rejected. Hindi Matter 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the order rejecting the application 594 Ka is not sustainable in law. 4. The duties of the Receiver are enumerated in Rule 3 of Order 40 CPC while Rule 4 provides for enforcement of these duties. The rules run as below: 3. Duties every receiver so appointed shall: (a) furnish such security (if any) as the court thinks fit, duly to account for what he shall receive in respect of the property; (b) submit his accounts at such periods and in such form as the court directs; (c) pay the amount due from him as the court directs; and (d) be responsible for any loss occasioned to the property by his willful default or gross negligence. 4. 4. Enforcement of Receiver's duties-where a receiver: (a) fails to submit his accounts at such periods and in such form as the court directs, or (b) fails to pay the amount due from him to the court direct, or (c) occasions loss to the property by his willful default or gross negligence. The court may direct his property be attached and may sell such property, and may apply the proceeds to make good any amount found to be due from him or any loss occasioned by him, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the receiver. 5. Receiver being an officer of the court and the property in respect of which he is appointed Receiver being custodia legis, any act or omission amounting to mis-conduct in relation to his duties as Receiver may tantamount to misconduct of the court itself if such act or omission is allowed to go unremedied by the court. The court must take appropriate action at appropriate stage against the erring Receiver within the frame-work of law and it must see that his duties are duly enforced appropriately Rule 4 of Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact in the instant case, the court ought to have taken steps at the time of removal of the Ex-Receiver Durga Sahu, for restoration to is Successor or the court, the property in cash or in kind which may have come in his possession as Receiver out of the suit property, Mere observation in the order dated 24.2.1990 to the effect that "Sri Durga Sahu is also directed to deposit the amount in cash, if any, on 11.5.1989 as alleged in the application 405A or to submit explanation to the new Receiver." was not enough. The court ought to have passed a definite and positive order as to the assets or amount, if any, in custody of Durga Sahu on the date he was removed or it must have seen whether any satisfactory explanation of the property in his custody as receiver was given by him to the new receiver it is difficult for me to approve of the manner in which the applications dated 24.3.1990 and 27.3.1990 filed by the petitioner were disposed of by the learned lower court. The casual manner in which these applications appear to have been disposed of by the learned lower court is destructive of the faith which is the sustaining force of any judicial system. The impugned order may lead to avoidable multiplicity of litigation. However, the erstwhile receiver Durga Sahu being one of the defendants, court retains seisin to give him appropriate direction if necessary and may even pass an appropriate order under Rule 4 of Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, if the learned lower court finds it convenient to do so it may take evidence on these applications also alongwith the evidence in the suit and decide the same and the suit simultaneously but by a separate order so that the aggrieved party may avail of its remedy separately by way of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. 6. In view of the above discussion the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.4.1990 (Annexure XI) is quashed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the applications of 24.3.1990 and 27.3.1990 afresh after taking such evidence as the court may think necessary on the issues involved therein at the earliest in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Cost is made easy.