JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Surya Kant as well as Sri B.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Original Suit No. 2 of 2005 by which a decision has been taken for appointment of the Receiver under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the Act). 3. The brief facts of the case are that a registered partnership deed was executed on 30.3.1988 between eight persons namely Jagdish Prasad Singh, Ram Daras Mishra, Ram Avadh Mishra, Subhash Singh, Sri Ram Mishra, Narendra Kumar Singh, Mratunjaya Mishra and Mulk Bahadur Singh. The partnership deed was entered in between the parties to run a Cinema hall namely M/s. Sanjay Talkies situate at Malipur Road, Shahzadpur Akbarpur District Ambedkar Nagar. In the said firm, Jagdish Prasad Singh and Ram Daras Mishra were allotted 20% share each and the rest were having 10% share each. On account of death of Mulk Bahadur Singh on 18.6.1990, a fresh partnership deed was executed in between the parties on 1.4.1992 and Sri Sanjay Singh and Rajesh Kumar Singh both sons of Mulk Bahadur Singh were inducted as partners on the place of their father. However, at later stage, a dispute arose between the parters and Sri Jagdish Prasad Singh moved an application under Section 145, Cr.P.C. on 6.5.2003 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned with the averment that he is the sole owner of the picture hall and exclusively running the same since 28.3.1990. Before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned he also taken a plea that he has personally taken loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the Bank of Baroda and is making repayment. The Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 30.9.2003 dropped the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. On 23.4.2005, the respondents filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act before the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that an application under Section 11 of the Act has filed in this Court about three years back, which is pending and the Arbitrator is yet to be appointed by the Chief Justice/Senior Judge of this Court. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that an application under Section 11 of the Act has filed in this Court about three years back, which is pending and the Arbitrator is yet to be appointed by the Chief Justice/Senior Judge of this Court. Before the District Judge, the parties advanced their arguments and after hearing the parties, the District Judge taken a decision to appoint the Receiver and both the parties were directed to give two names each so that appropriate person may be appointed as Receiver. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the District Judge, present appeal has been filed. 4. Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants, raised two folds argument. Firstly, since the partnership has not been dissolved and the business is running, no Receiver can be appointed in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Madras High Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 203 , Kalpana Kothari (Smt.) v. Sudha Yadav (Smt.) and others; (2004) 3 SCC 155 ; Firm Ashok Traders and another v. Gurumukh Das Saluja and others and AIR 1955 Mad. 430 , T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty and others. The other submission of Sri Khare is that even if an Arbitrator is appointed, the controversy cannot be resolved. 5. On the other hand Sri Surya Kant as well as Sri B.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Act, the Court has got power to appoint Receiver after considering overall necessity to balance the interest of both the parties. It has also been submitted that since the appellants themselves, while initiating proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C., had taken plea that partnership does not subsist and Sri Jagdish Prasad Singh is the sole owner of the picture hall in question and after drop of the proceeding by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the respondents have been ousted and they have not been permitted to share liability under the Partnership Act. 6. The decision taken by the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar seems to be just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has also been submitted by the respondents’ counsel that the appellants had committed fraud by preferring a Writ Petition No. 2377 (MB) of 2207 on behalf of the respondents, though they have never consented to do so. 7. It has also been submitted by the respondents’ counsel that the appellants had committed fraud by preferring a Writ Petition No. 2377 (MB) of 2207 on behalf of the respondents, though they have never consented to do so. 7. We have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. While passing the impugned order the learned District Judge was impressed with the factual finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as alleged involvement of fraud committed by the appellants by filing a writ petition in this Court on behalf of the respondents. The order indicates that Sri Jagdish Prasad Singh had taken a plea that he is the sole owner of the picture hall and running the same since 28.3.1990. Though Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that since the partnership has not been dissolved, the Receiver cannot be appointed, but from the evidence on record, it appears that for all practical purposes there is bona fide dispute with regard to title and possession of the picture hall in question and some of the partners have acquired the property ousting the others. The plea taken by Sri Jagdish Prasad Singh before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, prima-facie, reveals that he had denied the continuance of partnership. In such circumstances, to balance the rights of the parties the decision taken by the learned District Judge inviting two names from either side does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality. 9. In the case of Kalpana Kothari (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the decision for appointment of a Receiver may be passed by the High Court only after taking into account overall necessity to balance the interest of the parties (Para-10). Meaning thereby, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court is not precluded to take a decision for appointment of a Receiver. 10. In the case of Firm Ashok Traders (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the basic principle for appointment of a Receiver is whether it is just and convenient to do so. The relevant portion from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- “15. The most basic principle governing the discretion of the Court in appointing a receiver is whether it is “just and convenient” to do so. The relevant portion from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- “15. The most basic principle governing the discretion of the Court in appointing a receiver is whether it is “just and convenient” to do so. A few factors are of relevance which we proceed to record dispensing with the need of delving into any detailed discussion.” 11. In the case of T. Krishnaswamy Chetty (supra), the Madras High Court also followed the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court while recording a finding with regard to appointment of a Receiver. Needless to say that the appointment of a Receiver is equitable relief. Though, ordinary, as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a running business Receiver should not be appointed but in case under the mitigating facts and circumstances to safeguard the balance of interest of the parties if it is necessary to appoint a Receiver then the Court should not escape from its liability. 12. In the present case, the learned District Judge in stead of appointing a Receiver on his own had directed the parties to suggest two names from either sides from whom a person may be chosen for appointment as Receiver. The decision taken by the learned District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar seems to be a correct approach keeping in view the fact that one of the partners claims sole proprietorship of the picture hall in question. 13. In view of above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar. The District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar is directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to appointment of Receiver in terms of impugned order dated 17.4.2008 expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is expected that the parties shall suggest two names in view of the impugned order to the District Judge within a week from today. The Receiver so appointed shall take all necessary measures so that the business in question is not stopped and run smoothly. The Registrar of this Court is further directed to list the petition filed by the respondents under Section 11 of the Act before the Hon’ble Chief Justice/Senior Judge forthwith. Parties shall provide the number of pending case to the registry forthwith. The appeal is devoid of merit, as such, dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. The Registrar of this Court is further directed to list the petition filed by the respondents under Section 11 of the Act before the Hon’ble Chief Justice/Senior Judge forthwith. Parties shall provide the number of pending case to the registry forthwith. The appeal is devoid of merit, as such, dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. Let a certified copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a period of three days. ————