JUDGMENT :- Parties have been heard for final disposal of this petition by mutual consent. 2. The petitioners are urging this Court to exercise the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment and order dated 18.09.2008 of the District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji in Misc. Civil Appeal No.111/2007 preferred against the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Panaji dated 23.10.2007 in Regular Civil Suit No.50/2007/C and consequently for appointment of Court Receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 3. Prayer for appointment of Court Receiver to take custody/possession of the suit premises namely, a Taverna (liquor shop) popularly known as “Lords and Masters” situated at House No.882 at Mandur, Neura, Tiswadi, Goa with directions to put the petitioners/plaintiffs in custody/possession of the said premises as an agent till the disposal of the said suit was initially made by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit instituted under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. According to the petitioners/plaintiffs, the said liquor shop was started by late father/father-in-law of the plaintiff no.1/Mandesh and plaintiff no.2/Manjusha respectively in 1970, and he continued to run the said liquor shop till he fell in heavy debts and had to be freed from such indebtedness by Mr. Premanand Naik, son of his sister, in 1983; and thereafter the liquor shop was run by Mr. Premanand Naik till the responsibility of running the liquor shop was reluctantly taken over by the petitioner/plaintiff no.1 Mandesh in January, 1990; and since then the petitioner/plaintiff no.1 Mandesh has been running the shop efficiently till he had handed over the keys of the shop to his mother respondent/defendant no.4 Savita on 26.01.2007 in order to take holiday from the said business for the purposes of attending to his pregnant wife petitioner/plaintiff no.2 Manjusha. It has been the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that they had brought prosperity to the said business and not only made financial investment therein but helped the respondents financially. 4. On the other hand, the petitioners/plaintiffs plead that the respondent no.1/Bhargav and respondent no.3/Jawahar did little for the said business except squandering the Wealth and nursing grudge against the petitioners. It has been the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that they had brought prosperity to the said business and not only made financial investment therein but helped the respondents financially. 4. On the other hand, the petitioners/plaintiffs plead that the respondent no.1/Bhargav and respondent no.3/Jawahar did little for the said business except squandering the Wealth and nursing grudge against the petitioners. It appears from the application made for the appointment of Court Receiver that despite the request made to the respondent no.4/Savita to run the said liquor shop in his absence through either of the respondent no. 1/Bhargav and respondent no.3/Jawahar, the suit premises were not opened and instead the respondent no.1/Bhargav and respondent no.3/ Jawahar took the keys of the suit premises from their mother respondent no.4/Savita and refused to return the keys to the petitioner/plaintiff no.1 Mandesh on his return from his in-laws house at Ponda on 01.02.2007 and ultimately the respondent no.l/Bhargav and respondent no.3/ Jawahar had forcibly opened the suit premises on 27.05.2007 without the consent of the petitioners and started cleaning the suit premises giving rise to the cause of action for the said suit, under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. All these and such other contentions were denied by the respondents/defendants. The respondents/defendants state that the petitioners had voluntarily dissociated themselves from the joint enterprise of running the said liquor shop on the pretext that the petitioner/plaintiff no.1 Mandesh was no more interested to work as bartender in the said liquor shop on monthly remuneration and the said business stood in the name of respondent no.4/ Savita Govekar. 5. Perusal of the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji reveals that in face of documentary evidence, the learned Civil Judge prima facie found it difficult to reach any conclusion holding the petition/plaintiff no.1 Mandesh to be in sale possession and enjoyment of the said liquor shop and expected making out of a stronger case for giving relief of appointment of Court Receiver in the said suit lest wresting the possession from the defendants of the suit premises and doing irreparable wrong if it was to be discovered at the end of the trial that the petitioners were not to succeed. More or less same things weighed in the mind of the Appellate Court District Judge-I, Panaji while passing the impugned order. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. More or less same things weighed in the mind of the Appellate Court District Judge-I, Panaji while passing the impugned order. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Lotlikar for the petitioners deviated a little but significantly from the earlier prayer made by the petitioners in the application moved for appointment of Court receiver. He argued that on being wrongfully· dispossessed the respondents/defendants were logically to be in possession and for that it was erroneous on the part of the Courts below to have refused appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the suit premises particularly the running liquor shop. In his view the business of liquor shop was now in the hands of profligates' and consequently there would be no effective control on the running of the said business unless a third party was appointed as a Court Receiver with directions to run the business through the respondent/defendant no.4 Savita as an agent of the Court Receiver. Such arrangement he argued would not only make the respondents accountable but preserve the running business. 7. Learned· Advocate Mr. Vengurlekar for the respondents supported the impugned order with submissions that there exists clear documentary evidence of running of the liquor shop by the respondent no.4/Savita and the appointment of the Court Receiver would virtually operate as severance of the said business and the suit premises from the hands of the respondents particularly respondent no.4/Savita. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the judgment reported in AIR 1920 Bombay 321 - Govind Narain Rao Desai Vs. Vallabhrao Narayanrao Desai; AIR 1976 Patna 366 - Kamal Choudhary and anr. Vs. Rajendra Choudhary and ors.; AIR 1974 Goa, Daman and Diu 41 - Rogunatrao M. Dessai and anr. Vs. M/s. Mineira Nacional Ltd. and ors. And AIR 1965 Orissa 20 - Rasi Dei Vs. Bikal Maharana and ors.. 8. Appointment of Court Receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is a discretionary relief and therefore, it needs to be observed that every case has its factual nuances and no single judicial precedent can offer an empirical solution to the problems. What can be broadly observed from the judicial Precedents cited by the learned counsel Mr. Appointment of Court Receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is a discretionary relief and therefore, it needs to be observed that every case has its factual nuances and no single judicial precedent can offer an empirical solution to the problems. What can be broadly observed from the judicial Precedents cited by the learned counsel Mr. Vengurlekar for the respondents is that unless there are excellent chances of succeeding in establishing the facts made out in the case and that the property in possession of the opposite party is in danger of being wasted, there shall be no appointment of Court Receiver which has the effect of depriving the opposite party of a defacto possession leading to irreparable wrong and the opinion of the Trial Court in that regard s of great weight. 8-A. Pertinently, the petitioners chose to institute the suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a provision which entitles any person, be it a trespasser dispossessed of immovable property without his consent otherwise than in due course of law, to institute a suit for recovery of possession thereof not withstanding any other title that may be set up in the said suit. Evidently, Section 6 of the said Act makes provision for summary remedy for recovery of possession of immovable property, lost otherwise than in due Course of law. Subject matter of such lis is therefore strictly the possession of immovable property. It appears therefore, that the petitioner focused their energies on the issue of possession of the suit premises and virtually gave a back seat to the issues concerning waste of running business. Consequently, the learned Civil Judge on considering the documentary evidence found it difficult to make observations in favour of petitioners regarding the exclusive possession of the suit premises, and to pass an order of appointment of Court Receiver as solicited. 9. Considering the subject matter of the lis in the present case, it adjudication will determine the claim of the parties to the possession of the suit premises only. The Code of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism by which the rights or claims of the party in a suit of a civil nature are adjudicated, protected pending such adjudication and realised. Considering the subject matter of the lis in the present case, it adjudication will determine the claim of the parties to the possession of the suit premises only. The Code of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism by which the rights or claims of the party in a suit of a civil nature are adjudicated, protected pending such adjudication and realised. Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code makes a provision for appointment of Court Receiver for the protection of the rights and claims according to legal principles and the Court has to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case to find out whether there is any danger such as waste mal versation or misappropriation to the property in the lis and there are no other adequate means of saving it and based on these findings has to decide what is just and convenient. Looking to the limited scope and the nature of the lis and the facts pleaded in the instant case, merit of the plea in the appointment of Court Receiver remains questionable. 10. As Court exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court is expected to discharge its duties of superintendence in order to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of authority, but in doing so, it cannot substitute the judgment of the subordinate Courts with its own judgment unless there is any patent illegality or perversity in the judgment of the Subordinate Court. In the instant case, the Courts below, both original and appellate, heard the parties, considered the material placed before them and passed the impugned order/s without exceeding their authority. No illegality or perversity is seen in the impugned order/so 11. In the result, writ petition must fail. Writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.