JUDGMENT 1. - In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction preferred by "Aadi Gaur Brahmin Sabha" (hereinafter referred to as "Sabha") said to be a society registered under Societies Registration Act, an application was submitted by the defendants No.34 and 35, seeking appointment of receiver to preserve and protect immovable assets of the plaintiff society by alleging that Shri Yugal Kishore Surolia while holding the office of the President of the plaintiff society also constituted "Aadi Gaur Brahmin Sabha Trust" (hereinafter referred to as "Trust") and by asserting pressure he occupied the building of Sabha and is also interfering with its assets. The averments contained in the application were supported by an affidavit sworn-in by defendant Shri Mahendra Kumar. The plaintiff in reply to the application denied misuse of the assets but apprehended damage to the assets by defendant Trust. 2. A detailed reply to the application was filed on behalf of the Trust stating therein that no society in the name of "Aadi Gaur Brahmin Sabha" was in existence as the same was converted and registered as a Trust in the name of "Aadi Gaur Brahmin Trust". As per the averments contained in the reply by resolution undertaken by the members of the Sabha, the Sabha was dissolved, the trust was established and all assets of the Sabha stood vested with the Trust. While denying the allegation of misutilisation of the assets, it was asserted that the Trust by collecting huge money constructed first floor and entire account of the Trust was audited time to time. The applicants too were trustees of the Trust and they at one point of time supported all promotional and development efforts made by the Trust. 3. By the order impugned dated 1.12.2007 learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara accepted the application by appointing Shri Narpat Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Bhilwara as a receiver. The applicants too were trustees of the Trust and they at one point of time supported all promotional and development efforts made by the Trust. 3. By the order impugned dated 1.12.2007 learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara accepted the application by appointing Shri Narpat Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Bhilwara as a receiver. The operative portion of the order impugned reads as follows:- " 1- _f"k Hkou dk ,oa _f"k Hkou esa fo|eku py ,oa vpy leLr izdkj dh lEifRr dk dCtk ,oa dLVMh 3 fnu ds vUnj vUnj Jh ujir flag iqfyl mi vf/k{kd ( flVh ) dks lqiqnZ dj fjiksVZ bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djsaA 2- _f"k Hkou ls lacaf/kr leLr ys[kk iqLrdksa] jftLVjksa] jlhn cqd] cSad laca/kh leLr dkxtkr cSad cqd vkfn] ,Q0Mh0 tks dksbZ gks ,oa udn jkf'k tks xYys esa bu gS.M ,oa cSad esa tek vkfn dk lEiw.kZ fglkc jlhoj Jh ujirflag iqfyl mi v/kh{kd ( flVh ) dks lqiqnZ dj mldh Hkh fjiksVZ bl U;k;ky; dks izLrqr djsaxsA 3- pwd dh fLFkfr esa fjlhoj Jh ujirflag] iqfyl mi v/kh{kd flVh dks vf/kdkj lfgr vf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gS fd os _f"k Hkou ,oa mlesa fo|eku py ,oa vpy lEifRr ,oa ys[kk laca/kh leLr dkxtkr e; ,Q0Mh0vkj0 ,oa xYys ,oa cSad dh jkf'k lfgr fglkc dk dCtk ,oa dLVMh izkIr dj fjiksVZ bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djsA 4- fjlhoj dks fgnk;r ,oa vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os _f"k Hkou dk ,oa _f"k Hkou dh py ,oa vpy lEifRr ,oa ys[kkvksa dk Kkiu] izcU/k] lqj{kk] laj{k.k ,oa lq/kkj vkfn iwoZ dh Hkkafr ;Fkkor~ orZeku LVkQ ls ;k os pkgs ftl LVkQ ls djrs jgsaxsA 5- fjlhoj dks ;g Hkh vkns'k nsdj vf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gS fd _f"k Hkou esa fo|eku py ,oa vpy lEifRr ,oa _f"k Hkou ls lacaf/kr leLr jkf'k;ksa udn ,oa cSad esa tek vkfn dk mi;ksx ,oa dY;k.k esa dh tkosA 6- _f"k Hkou dh vk; dk leLr ys[kk tks[kk fjlhoj dks izR;sd 3 ekg esa U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djuk gksxkA 7- fjlhoj _f"k Hkou ds lqpk: lqj{kk] izcU/k] laj{k.k ,oa lq/kkj ds fy;s vius Lrj ij vkfn xkSM+ czkgkz.k lekt ds Lfkkuh; ;ksX; ,oa mPp f'kf{kr laLdkjoku~ o fopkjoku O;fDr;ksa ls lg;ksx ysus ds fy;s Lora= jgsxkA 8- fjlhoj _f"k Hkou dh vk; ls 5000 :i;s ekfld ( v{kjs ikap gtkj :i;s ) ifjJkfed Hkh izkIr djrk jgsxkA ckn ds i{kdkjku~ ,oa vkfn xkSM+ ckzgkz.k lekt ds izR;sd izcq) ,oa mPp f'kf{kr ukxfjd ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os viuh 'kfDr o lkeF;Z ds vuqlkj fjlhoj dks lg;ksx nsaxsA " 4. Learned Additional District Judge supported the order aforesaid being necessary to preserve, protect, administer and develop the assets of Sabha on following counts, inter-alia; (1) the Sabha has not been extinct and that is more democratic than the Trust; (2) the object of the Sabha was to maintain unity, integrity and uniformity in Aadi Gaur Brahmin Samaj, but on establishment of the Trust the Samaj is divided in two factions, consequently all activities of the Samaj stood stagnated and the leg-pulling among the factions of the Samaj is causing damage; (3) the State Government spent a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- in construction of the Sabha building commonly known as "Rishi Bhawan" and the land too was allotted on concessional rates with object to promote national interest and religious activities but those stood stagnated due to prevailing factionalism; (4) no list of trustees was placed on record and an allegation of Sabha is that out of 30 trustees 18 are close relatives of Shri Yugal Kishore Surolia; and (5) bye-laws were not adhered while changing name of the Sabha and Shri Yugal Kishore Surolia was misusing his position and majority of the Samaj is ignorant about activities of the Trust. 5. While assailing validity of the order dated 1.12.2007 the argument advanced by Shri J.P.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant is that no just and convenient reason was available with the Court to appoint a receiver as the Trust is maintaining, preserving and protecting all assets including "Rishi Bhawan" which is frequently used for social activities. The Trust by making all efforts, collected huge money and constructed major part of the building, the accounts too are maintained and audited regularly, as such there is no eminent danger to preservation, custody or management of the assets that may warrant appointment of a receiver. 6. To substantiate the contention that no just and convenient reason was available for appointment of a receiver, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (2000)9 SCC 560 , S.Saleema Bi v. S.Pyari Begum & Anr. , holding therein that "the receiver can only be appointed when it is just and convenient and also when there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and the case calls for taking of urgent measure like appointment of a receiver". 7. , holding therein that "the receiver can only be appointed when it is just and convenient and also when there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and the case calls for taking of urgent measure like appointment of a receiver". 7. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment given in the case of Kalpana Kothari (Smt.) v. Sudha Yadav (Smt.) & Ors., reported in [ (2002)1 SCC 203 ] , discussing the issue relating to appointment of receiver as follows:- "10.So far as the need for or desirability of appointing the Receiver and granting of injunction, as prayed for, is concerned, the High Court does not seem to have taken into account the overall necessity to balance the interests of both parties. Since only the land has been said to have been brought into the partnership assets by the plaintiff's husband with no other contribution of any further funds, that the land was got legally converted into one fit for commercial purposes of the Firm and the constructions were stated to have been put up only with the funds of the other partners or the builders, as the case may be, and the serious difficulties and loss to which the Firm and partners may be put into by freezing the day-to-day business activities of the Firm and the adverse impact on the credibility and reputation of the Firm, as a whole, do not seem to have engaged the attention of the High court in passing the orders under challenge. The feasibility or otherwise of appointing party-Receiver and allowing them to carry on the day-to-day activities of the business subject to strict and effective control and accountability to the Court of the realising of the business does not seem to have been considered at all before going out for the appointment of a third-party Receiver and prohibiting any sales, completely." 8. A reliance is also placed upon Single Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Mahendrasingh v. Shri Arvind Singh & Ors., SBCivil Misc. Appeal No.179/86, decided on 11.6.1993. 9. I have considered the argument advanced and examined the record. 10. The consideration for appointment of receiver as per Order XXXX Rule 1 CPC are adequately settled by various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of High Courts. Appeal No.179/86, decided on 11.6.1993. 9. I have considered the argument advanced and examined the record. 10. The consideration for appointment of receiver as per Order XXXX Rule 1 CPC are adequately settled by various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of High Courts. It is well settled that appointment of receiver is in discretion of the Court which must be exercised judiciously. The person seeking appointment of receiver must have an interest in the property to be effected. The appointment of receiver must be for protecting rights of all the parties and the subject matter. The applicant must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action including appointment of receiver. The jurisdiction of equity to appoint a receiver may be invoked in order to effectuate the relief sought in the proceedings, where needed to preserve the assets from de-utilisation, de-composition or destruction. The conduct of the party seeking appointment of a receiver should be fair and the party must come to the Court with clean hands. While exercising discretion for appointing a receiver the public nature of the dispute also plays vital role. To balance the equities between the parties and also to ensure peace and maintenance of harmony among large groups of the society, the Court may feel just and convenient to appoint a receiver. While appointing a receiver, being a dispute in public nature, the Court must ensure that a legally authorised body be not denied from discharging its obligations at the instance of a minor group acting with oblique or ulterior motive. In other words, the dispute must be genuine and one affecting people concern at large. While examining availability of the ingredients for appointment of receiver, the Court should be quite cautions and before taking drastic step for appointment of a receiver, the Court must satisfy that the best available recourse to preserve and protect the property is appointment of receiver and none else. 11. In the instant matter the facts deserve to be scaled broadly on the criteria referred above. 12. It is not in dispute that the assets relating to which receiver is appointed were established with an object to overall development and promotion of "Aadi Gaur Brahmin Samaj". The plaintiff society was established in the year 1986. The Trust was created subsequent thereto and was registered as a public trust in the year 2006. 12. It is not in dispute that the assets relating to which receiver is appointed were established with an object to overall development and promotion of "Aadi Gaur Brahmin Samaj". The plaintiff society was established in the year 1986. The Trust was created subsequent thereto and was registered as a public trust in the year 2006. A serious allegation regarding functioning of Trust is made and on basis of the material available the trial court found force in the allegations and considered it just and convenient to appoint a receiver. While doing so, the trial court has prescribed certain conditions and those are absolutely in interest of "Aadi Gaur Brahmin Samaj" and also to promote the objects of Sabha as well as Trust. 13. In the dispute in hand, what appears from the material available on record, is that two factions of "Aadi Gaur Brahmin Samaj" are indulged in severe disputes regarding preservation, protection, administration and maintenance of the assets and that is seriously hampering interests of the members of the society. Serious allegations are levelled by either groups regarding misuse of funds and of assets. Learned trial court in detail considered effect and impact of prevailing factionalism in the Samaj. The trial court by judicious exercise of the discretion vested with it appointed a receiver. The pleadings of the case and the documents placed on record establish it well that two groups of the Samaj are claiming for assets and that is adversely effecting objects of the society. The assets are created for their best use by the Samaj, but in present case those are being ill-managed due to rival claims. The demand to maintain harmony and optimum use of the assets needs appointment of the receiver. I do not find any illegality in the order appointing the receiver under the order impugned. However, it is always desired that the management of the assets should be made by the authorised competent person, and not by adhoc or supplemental measures, thus, the early disposal of the suit is desirable. 14. In view of the discussion made above, this misc. appeal is having no merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. It is expected from the trial court to decide the suit concern expeditiously as far as possible within a year from today.Appeal dismissed. *******