( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) WE have heard both the parties. The tangle can be resolved by adopting the following procedure. ( 3 ). K. V. Thakkar and another are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 252 of 1980 on the original side in the High court. Equally, Respondents 1 to 17 in this special leave petition are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 983 of 1990 on the original side in the High court. Initially, in Suit No. 252 of 1980, on a motion, a court Receiver has been appointed as a custodia legis of the properties involved in the suit. In Suit No. 983 of 1990, filed by the respondents for declaration of title, on three different occasions, three learned Judges on the original side passed orders, the result of which was that the court Receiver should continue in possession of the suit property as custodia legis. Later on the respondents moved another motion in which the division bench, on appeal, in the impugned order dated 24/10/1994, directed the court Receiver to continue to be the court Receiver in Suit No. 983 of 1990 till the disposal of the notice of motion. Calling in question, the appeal has been filed. ( 4 ) SHRI Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has contended that in view of the fact that on three different occasions, the learned Single Judges have passed different orders continuing the court Receiver to be the Receiver in Suit No. 252 of 1980, the first order having been allowed to become final, the directions issued by the division bench in the impugned order that the Receiver to be the Receiver in Suit No. 983 of 1990, would be contradictory in terms and two Receivers cannot be allowed to operate in respect of the same property. Therefore, the division bench was not right in directing that the court Receiver will be the Receiver in Suit No. 983 of 1990. ( 5 ) SHRI P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, refuted the contention. Though we find force in the contention of Shri Desai, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we need not disturb the order. We are of the view that respondents-plaintiffs in Suit No. 983 of 1990 were not made parties-defendants in Suit No. 252 of 1980. Though we find force in the contention of Shri Desai, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we need not disturb the order. We are of the view that respondents-plaintiffs in Suit No. 983 of 1990 were not made parties-defendants in Suit No. 252 of 1980. We cannot direct the plaintiffs in Suit No. 252 of 1980 to make respondents as party-defendants in that suit. However, to avoid possible conflict of action to be taken by the Receiver, at the instance of the parties, it is necessary that if he deems itnecessary to take any action pursuant to the instructions issued by the plaintiffs in Suit No. 252 of 1980 or plaintiffs in Suit No. 983 of 1990, he should make all of them as parties to such proceedings or of the motion and they will be heard by the court in respect of that proceedings or motion and the court to pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties so that parties would take appropriate action according to law. ( 6 ) THE controversy would thus be resolved for the time being pending notice of Motion No. 2138 of 1994 so that there would be no conflict of action. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.