JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The judgment dated 20th January, 2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Angul in F.A. No.22 of 2003 reversing the order dated 11th October, 2002 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Angul in MJC No.74 of 2002 arising out of Civil Suit No.69 of 2002 and restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) from interfering with the day today administration of the Kalinga Institute of Mining Engineering & Technology, plaintiff No.1 (opposite party No.1 herein) till disposal of the aforesaid Civil Suit is assailed in this Writ Petition. 2. The opposite parties as plaintiffs filed the aforesaid Civil Suit No.69 of 2002 in the Court of the Civil Judge (SD), Angul impleading the present petitioners as defendants 1 to 5 as well as the Collector of Angul as defendant No.6. The suit was one for declaration that plaintiff No.2 (opposite party No.2 herein) was the Secretary of the Trust Board of plaintiff No.1-Institute and was entitled to manage the Institute and for fur¬ther declaration that the defendants had ceased to be the members of the Trust Board of the Institute besides praying for permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed which was registered as aforesaid MJC No.74 of 2002 inter alia praying to restrain the defendants from disturbing in the day to day management of the Institute. 3. The trial Court by order dated 7.9.2002 granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the day to day management of the Institute and from causing any disturbance in the affairs of plaintiff No.2 in managing the Institute and issued notice to the defendants. The defendants thereafter appeared and filed their objection. The trial Court after hearing the parties by order dated 11.10.2002 dismissed the MJC and vacated the ad interim ex parte injunction order dated 7.9.2002. The said order dated 7.9.2002 was chal¬lenged by the plaintiffs before the Addl.District Judge, Angul in F.A. No.22 of 2002. As stated earlier, the appellate Court al¬lowed the Appeal and reversed the order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Angul and restrained the defendants from interfering with the day to day administration of the Institute till disposal of the Civil Suit. 4. Mr. As stated earlier, the appellate Court al¬lowed the Appeal and reversed the order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Angul and restrained the defendants from interfering with the day to day administration of the Institute till disposal of the Civil Suit. 4. Mr. Indrajeet Mohanty,learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, forcefully submitted that the Additional District Judge has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned order was based on surmises and conjec¬tures. According to him, the impugned order also suf¬fers from the vice of non-consideration of the orders passed by this Court in earlier litigations and if it is a fit case where the impugned order should be struck down in the interest of the Institute and more particularly the students who are prosecuting studies in the said Institute. 5. Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, at the other hand repudiated the submissions made by Mr. Mohanty and contended that the Addl. District Judge has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners has absolutely no right to continue in the man¬agement and/or create disturbance in the affairs of the Insti¬tute. They are rank trespassers and they are to be kept out of the management of the Institute as has been rightly ordered by the Addl. District Judge. Mr. Panigrahi further submitted that opposite party No.2 is the Secretary of the Trust Board of the Institute and he is the only person who is competent to manage the affairs of the Institute. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the impugned orders and the materials available on record meticulously. The case has a checkered career, inasmuch as it had travelled to this Court earlier in (1) OJC No.5941/92-disposed of on 22.12.1994; (2) OJC No.6520/95-disposed of on 1.3.1996; (3) OJC No.12851/97 and (4) OJC No.13696/96 - both disposed of on 17.1.2002; and lastly OCRMC No.251/02 which is pending. 7. The Kalinga Institute of Mining Engineering & Technolo¬gy (for short KIMET) is a private educational institute managed by a Trust Board. The dispute in the present case is with regard to constitution of the Governing Body of the said Institute vis-a-vis the management of the Institute by a legally constitut¬ed governing body. 7. The Kalinga Institute of Mining Engineering & Technolo¬gy (for short KIMET) is a private educational institute managed by a Trust Board. The dispute in the present case is with regard to constitution of the Governing Body of the said Institute vis-a-vis the management of the Institute by a legally constitut¬ed governing body. In Misc.Case No.3678/98 arising out of OJC No.13696/97, this Court by order dated 16.3.1998 had observed as follows :- “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for smooth management of the institution, we consider that receiver should be appointed for management of the institution in question till the dispute is resolved. Accordingly, we appoint Shri D. P. Mohanty, Additional District Magistrate, Angul, as receiver. The parties to the litigation are directed to cooperate with him in the management of the Institution. It needs no emphasis that the receiver is an officer of the Court and if any of the parties to the litigation obstructs or resists in his functioning as receiv¬er, he will be appropriately dealt with according to law. Any collection of amount or withdrawal of the same from the Bank will be under the countersignature of the receiver. Opposite party No.5 is hereby restrained from operating the bank account of the Institution.” In consonance with the said order of this Court, Shri D. P. Mohanty, Addl.District Magistrate, Angul took over management of the Institute. However in the year 2000 Shri D. P. Mohanty was transferred from Angul. Thereafter on the basis of a petition filed, this Court by order dated 5.12.2000 discharged Shri D. P. Mohanty from receivership and in his place appointed the Collec¬tor & District Magistrate, Angul as the receiver. In the said order the parties were also directed to cooperate with the re¬ceiver in management of the Institute. 8. While matter stood thus, a petition was filed before this Court bringing to its notice that by efflux of time and due to subsequent development, there was no more administrative interference with the functioning of the Principal of the Insti¬tute or the status of the Governing Body or the Board of Trust. In view of such submission, this Court felt that continuance of the Writ Petition is no longer necessary and the same had become infructuous. In view of such submission, this Court felt that continuance of the Writ Petition is no longer necessary and the same had become infructuous. By order dated 17.1.2002 the Writ Petition was dis¬missed as infructuous with further direction that the interim orders including the order appointing the receiver stood vacated. The receiver was also directed to hand over charge to the person or persons from whom he had taken over charge. 9. After disposal of OJC No.13696/97, the present opposite parties filed the aforesaid Civil Suit before the Court below. In the meanwhile, a petition was filed in OJC No.13696/97 for clari¬fication as to whom the receiver should hand over the charge as directed in order dated 17.1.2002. At the other hand, a petition for contempt was filed by the petitioners inter alia alleging that the receiver had not complied with the direction issued by this Court and had not handed over charge of the Institute to the person or persons from whom he had taken over charge. The said petition for contempt was registered as OCRMC No.251 of 2002. In the said OCRMC No.251 of 2002 this Court by order dated 20.9.2002 directed as follows :- “The Collector who was acting as receiver when this Writ application was disposed of and the Addl.District Magistrate from whom the Collector took over the charge, will file separate affidavit stating with whom they were dealing with while dis¬charging their functions as receiver. xx xx It is made clear that as the Collector has not yet handed over the charge to anybody, the Collector will continue to discharge his powers regarding the financial matters of the Institution.” 10. Mr. Mohanty submits in consonance with the aforesaid direction of a Division Bench of this Court, the Collector is still functioning/acting as receiver so far as the financial matters of the Institute are concerned. But then the administra¬tive management of the Institute is carried on by the petition¬ers. This submission is stoutly denied by Mr. Panigrahi. Accord¬ing to Mr. Panigrahi the plaintiffs (opposite parties) are manag¬ing the administration of the Institute and the petitioners who are defendants in the Civil Suit before the Court below should be restrained from disturbing in their administration. 11. According to Mr. This submission is stoutly denied by Mr. Panigrahi. Accord¬ing to Mr. Panigrahi the plaintiffs (opposite parties) are manag¬ing the administration of the Institute and the petitioners who are defendants in the Civil Suit before the Court below should be restrained from disturbing in their administration. 11. According to Mr. Panigrahi, the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution inter alia challenging the order of the Additional District Judge passed by him in exercise of his powers under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC while dealing with a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC is not maintainable, inasmuch as a Civil Revision filed against the self same orders was dis¬missed. Mr. Mohanty, in reply, submits that as there is no other alternative remedy and as great prejudice would be caused not only to the petitioner-defendants but also to the students of the Institute at large, it is a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. 12. KIMET is an Institute which imparts technical education. A number of students are prosecuting their studies in the said Institute. If the tussle with regard to management of the Institute continues, it would not only hamper the smooth management of the Institute but also definitely hamper the inter¬est of the students. Considering all these aspects, a Division Bench of this Court by order in OJC No.13696 of 1997 had appoint¬ed the Collector & District Magistrate of Angul as receiver and had vested on him both financial as well as administrative powers so far as management of the Institute is concerned. This Court had also cautioned the litigating parties not to interfere or mingle with the administration of the Collector, but to cooperate with him. According to Mr. Panigrahi, the said order appointing the Collector as the receiver stood vacated after the Writ appli¬cation was disposed of on 17.1.2002. In fact this Court had directed the receiver to hand over charge to the person or per¬sons from whom he had taken over charge. But then it appears that later by order passed in OCRMC No.251/02 this Court once again directed the Collector to continue to discharge his powers re¬garding the financial matters of the Institute. At this juncture it would be difficult to bifurcate the financial matters and the management of administration. But then it appears that later by order passed in OCRMC No.251/02 this Court once again directed the Collector to continue to discharge his powers re¬garding the financial matters of the Institute. At this juncture it would be difficult to bifurcate the financial matters and the management of administration. As would be evident this Court had earlier appointed the Collector as receiver. Law is well settled that exercise of jurisdiction by Court to appoint a receiver or to issue an injunction is not a matter ex debito justitice, but one which is purely within the discretion of the Court. But then such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily, and should be based on sound and reasonable consideration guided by judicial principles. 13. Considering the facts in the touch-stone of the afore¬said principles and in the interest of the students of the Insti¬tute and in view of the direction issued by this Court in OCRMC No.251/02 that the Collector should continue as the receiver, in variance of the impugned order, according to me it would be just and proper if the Collector is allowed to continue as receiver in the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the orders passed by this Court in OJC No.13696/97 and OCRMC No.251/02 till dispos¬al as of the Civil Suit, and I direct accordingly. This interim arrangement shall continue till disposal of the suit or till any other orders are passed by the Division Bench in OJC No.13697/97 or OCRMC No.251/02. In order to safeguard the interest of the parties and to solve the stalemate situation arising out of inter se dispute among the parties continuing for years together, I further direct that the Civil Judge (SD), Angul shall dispose of Civil Suit No.69 of 2002 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this judgment. And I direct accordingly. I further direct the parties to cooperate with the Court below for early disposal of the suit. With the aforesaid observation/directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.