JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard learned Counsel of the plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondent no. 1, it transpires that the dispute pertains to a place/property, popularly known as Maharaj Chetan Dev Awadhoot Ji Ashram or Chetan Dev Kutia (for short, ‘Kutia’) situated in the area Kankhal of town Haridwar. Defendant/respondent no. 1 Mohan Das is the main rival and all other 8 respondents are in proforma and they have been arrayed in the Original Suit No. 254/2007 as defendants, but in fact their interest is with the plaintiff. 2. Defendant no. 1, after the death of Swami Chetan Das, the original Mahant of the Kutia, somehow stepped into the shoes and began to claim himself as the Chief Mahant of such Kutia. On the other hand, this Kutia is claimed to be the part and parcel of a trust wherefor the plaintiff Bihari D. Chhabaria and other defendants/respondents are the trustees. So, in order to resist the defendant no. 1, an Original Suit No. 254/2007 was launched for declaration of such Kutia to be the property of such trust and also seeking the mandatory injunction directing the defendant no. 1 to 2 remove his possession and hand over the same to the plaintiff/Board of Trustees. It was also prayed that the defendants along with his associates/agents be ousted from such Kutia and, for future, they be directed not to interfere in the possession/management of such Kutia under the trust. Vehemently opposing such suit, the written statement was filed. 3. Before permitting the suit ahead, an application 7C, on the record, was pressed and thus heard by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and an order dated 23.5.2009 was passed appointing two local Senior Advocates, namely, Vijay Sharma and Ramesh Chandra Nankani as the receivers of the property, in question, to look after the same. This order was challenged by the defendant no. 1 in Appeal No. 181/2009. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court, as an interim measure, only modified the order on 5.6.2009 and these two receivers were replaced by Mr. R.R. Agrawal, a retired District Judge, who took over the charge of such Kutia immediately and report thereof dated 6.6.2009 was submitted by him to the Court. Such appeal preferred by the defendant no. 1 was heard by this Court later and by an elaborate order dated 18.11.2009, the appointment of the receivers was upheld. R.R. Agrawal, a retired District Judge, who took over the charge of such Kutia immediately and report thereof dated 6.6.2009 was submitted by him to the Court. Such appeal preferred by the defendant no. 1 was heard by this Court later and by an elaborate order dated 18.11.2009, the appointment of the receivers was upheld. Feeling disgruntled, the defendant no. 1 preferred SLP No. 8181/2010 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and such SLP was dismissed on 6.9.2010 on merits, but with the direction to the trial court to decide the said suit within six months from the date of receiving the certified copy of such order. 4. Thus, the suit started to proceed and on the basis of the pleadings of the defendant, a preliminary issue regarding the suit valuation and payment of Court Fee was formulated. Since the property, in question, was in the nature of public charitable trust being used for the religious and benevolent purposes, so it was tentatively assessed to be of rupees ten lakhs for seeking the relief inter alia for declaration of injunction. But the defendant no. 1 pleaded that since the possession of the property has been sought from him, so its value should have been assessed on the market rate and ad velorem Court Fee must have been paid. The Court, however, got the market value assessed through its Amin and determined the valuation of the property to be approximately thirteen crores and fourteen lakhs, so the suit was valued and the plaintiff was asked to pay the ad valorem Court Fee accordingly by order dated 6.1.2011. 5. The aforesaid order was challenged by the plaintiff by way of filing the Civil Revision No. 5/2011. Since the trial court was proceeding the matter very hurriedly on account of the limitation set by the Hon’ble Apex Court, hence the plaintiff was being pressed to make compliance of the order dated 6.1.2011 so much so he was obliged to move an amendment application dated 1.2.2011 making the suit valuation as thirteen crores fourteen lakhs, but it was stated in such application that amendment is being sought to comply with the directions of the trial court, but the same shall be subject to the adjudication of the Civil Revision No. 5/2011. 6. 6. Since the plaintiff was required to pay a huge Court Fee, a little short of one crore approximately, and which he could not pay, so his suit was rejected on 17.2.2011 under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Civil Procedure Code and thus the time limitation fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court to settle the dispute within six months was technically complied, but without any adjudication of the rights between the parties. 7. On the next day i.e. on 18.2.2011, learned Counsel of the respondent no. 1 made a statement before the revisional court that the plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC on 17.2.2011. So, this Court dismissed the revision as being infructuous with the observation that all the grounds taken in the revision may be raised by the revisionist/plaintiff in the appeal because the order dated 17.2.2011 rejecting the plaint was appealable under Section 96 along with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC. Thus, the instant appeal FA 14/2011 was preferred on 4.3.2011 challenging the order of rejection of the plaint. Learned Counsel of the appellant thus has challenged the validity of the order dated 6.1.2011 too in this appeal determining the suit valuation on the strength of the order of this Court dated 18.2.2011 and has argued that besides the said order of this Court, making the appellant entitle to put his case challenging the order dated 6.1.2011, Section 105 of the CPC also permits him in this regard. This Court does agree with such contention. 8. The argument of learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent that in compliance of the order dated 6.1.2011, even the amendment has been incorporated in the plaint. So, there is no propriety now to contemplate the validity of such order. This argument is untenable for the reason that amendment by the plaintiff was done, while the order dated 6.1.2011 was still under challenge in the civil revision, in order to make compliance of the pressing direction of the trial court looking to the exigency that the suit had to be decided within six months. So, the amendment application moved by the plaintiff on 1.2.2011 was entailing a condition that such amendment was being sought subject to the decision of Civil Revision No. 5/2011, and this Court now has heard the arguments against the order dated 6.1.2011 as well as 17.2.2011. 9. So, the amendment application moved by the plaintiff on 1.2.2011 was entailing a condition that such amendment was being sought subject to the decision of Civil Revision No. 5/2011, and this Court now has heard the arguments against the order dated 6.1.2011 as well as 17.2.2011. 9. Learned Counsel of the plaintiff appellant has submitted that the suit is not to be valued on the market rate of the property because, firstly, such property was being claimed as that of the public charitable trust used for benevolent and religious purposes and, apart from that, the receiver has been appointed on such property and appointment of such receiver remained upheld up to the level of Hon’ble Apex Court, then the entire property of such Kutia will be deemed to be under the possession of the receiver and not of the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 was permitted to perform only religious functions in such property. Performing the religious functions by no stretch of imagination can be attributed to infer the property to be in the possession of defendant no. 1 Mohan Das, but it shall be deemed to be in the possession of the receiver appointed by this Court, and the possession of the receiver tantamount to the possession of the Court. If the suit is decreed for all the reliefs, then the possession of such Kutia is not to be taken from the defendant no. 1, but from the receiver. 10. The Court is in full agreement with the aforementioned submissions of the learned Counsel of the plaintiff appellant and in view of what has been stated above, this Court holds that the suit valuation must not have been assessed on the market rate. So, there was no question of asking the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem Court Fee. This way, the order dated 6.1.2011, determining the suit valuation, and also the order dated 17.2.2011, rejecting the plaint, both are hereby set aside. 11. Now, the Court will consider the application CLMA No. 13060/2014 moved by the plaintiff on 14.1.2014 in view of the eventuality that Mr. R.R. Agrawal unfortunately expired on 13.7.2013, so, the plaintiff moved such application suggesting two names of Mr. P.K. Agrawal and Mr. Rameshwar Singh, retired District Judges, to occupy the possession as the new receiver in place of Mr. R.R. Agrawal. This has further been resisted by the defendant no. 1. R.R. Agrawal unfortunately expired on 13.7.2013, so, the plaintiff moved such application suggesting two names of Mr. P.K. Agrawal and Mr. Rameshwar Singh, retired District Judges, to occupy the possession as the new receiver in place of Mr. R.R. Agrawal. This has further been resisted by the defendant no. 1. 12. Attention has been drawn to the orders of this Court dated 29.07.2011 passed in this First Appeal, whereby it was ordered that the receiver of the property, in question, will continue, nonetheless the plaint was rejected on 17.02.2011. That is why Mr. R.R. Agarwal was continuing as the receiver, even though the plaint was rejected. But he has died unfortunately on 13.07.2013. So, the question is not to go through the merits as to appoint the receiver de novo, but looking to the order of the Trial Court dated 23.05.2009, which remained sustained up to the level of Hon’ble Apex Court, appointment of such receiver is indispensable. Any objection of respondent no. 1 in this regard is meaningless and the Court rejects the same. 13. Although two names have been suggested, but I feel that Mr. P.K. Agarwal, a retired District Judge, though has been a good judge but he lives at the distance of at least four hours journey from the place in question, besides being a quite old age person and looking after the other official assignments after his retirement at Rudrapur, still a place of further one and half hours distance. So it will not be feasible for him to look after the affairs of the Kutia. As regards the second name Mr. Rameshwar Singh, the Court is not aware about his physical fitness as well as indispositions. So, it will not be in the interest of justice to select any one of them to protect the property. 14. I feel that the property should be entrusted to be managed by a young energetic, law knowing local person of integrity and religious mindset. I feel that appointment of Mr. Gopal Chaturvedi, a local Advocate in Haridwar District Courts, as the receiver of the property in question will be in quite fitness of things. So, I appoint him as such. His terms and conditions as well as the nature of work will be as under:- (i) He will take the entire Kutia and its properties, whatsoever and wheresoever, in his exclusive control and possession. So, I appoint him as such. His terms and conditions as well as the nature of work will be as under:- (i) He will take the entire Kutia and its properties, whatsoever and wheresoever, in his exclusive control and possession. He will be the Administrator of the entire Kutia and its affairs will be under his express or implied permission and instructions. But at the same time, defendant no. 1 Mohan Das shall be entitled to continue performing the religious functions in such Kutia if performed by him depicting personal indulgence and not through his agent or manager. (ii) In any case, he will be the overall in-charge except permitting the performance of the religious functions by defendant no. 1 Mohan Das in such Kutia as adverted in clause (i) supra. (iii) All the workers, staff, vehicle (if any) of such Kutia shall be under his management, control and subordination. All will owe their allegiance to him and he will be free to take disciplinary action against all or anyone found delinquent in the nature of putting bottlenecks in his administration including the expulsion of him from the services of the Kutia. If need arises the receiver will not hesitate to seek help from District Government Administration and police, wherefor they are duty bound. (iv) He will receive rupees ten thousand per month as his honorarium from the income accumulated from the means, existing or generated from the property of such Kutia. (v) Defendant no. 1 as well as plaintiff and proforma defendants shall be at liberty to make financial assistance and contribution to the receiver for running the Kutia for benevolent and religious purposes and functions. (vi) The receiver will get the accounts in the bank as well as the registers of income and expenditure of the Kutia managed properly through some worker so that this Court may have a look on the same if feels necessary. (vii) Either the receiver or the defendant no.1 or the plaintiff or his associates in any case, will not create any encumbrance over the property of such Kutia or transfer the same in any manner without the prior permission of this Court. (viii) The receiver shall inform this Court at the earliest as regards the taking over of the charge as enjoined by this Court. 15. (viii) The receiver shall inform this Court at the earliest as regards the taking over of the charge as enjoined by this Court. 15. Appeal stands allowed setting aside the orders dated 06.01.2011 and 17.02.2011 passed by trial court, indicated above. As a consequence, the amendment, which plaintiff was constraint to incorporate in the pleadings, will be permitted to be deleted to the extent as have been clarified above. 16. Since, as per the spirit of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 06.09.2010, the matter has still not been adjudicated between the parties, so the learned trial court is directed to make every possible endeavour to adjudicate the original suit within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Lower court record be sent back. 17. Certified copy of this order will be communicated by the Registry to Mr. Gopal Chaturvedi, Advocate in Haridwar District Court, immediately through the special messenger.