ORDER : 1. The present application is filed by the applicant-original defendant No. 5 seeking the following prayers:- (a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow the present Civil Application. (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to handover peaceful physical possession of the subject land bearing Revenue Survey No. 221/paiki and 225/paiki total admeasuring about 52 Acres and 4 Gunthas situated at Village Rajpur, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha in favour of the Applicant with necessary undertakings as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Court, Alternatively. (c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint a Court Receiver under the provisions of Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with all the necessary powers to take peaceful physical possession of the subject land bearing Revenue Survey No. 221/paiki and 225/paiki total admeasuring about 52 Acres and 4 Gunthas situated at Village Rajpur, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha from Respondents No. 1 to 4. (d) After taking the peaceful physical possession, the subject land bearing Revenue Survey No. 221/paiki and 225/paiki total admeasuring about 52 Acres and 4 Gunthas situated at Village Rajpur, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha from Respondents No. 1 to 4, the Court Receiver be directed to file status report of the subject land at regular intervals before this Hon’ble Court. (e) Ex-parte ad-interim reliefs in terms of Para 9(b) or Para (c) and (d) may be granted in favour of Applicant and against the Respondents No. 1 to 4. (f) Any other further/reliefs in the interest of equity, justice and conscience be granted. (g) Cost of the application be provided with. 2. The applicant has contended that the land in question is currently in possession of respondents No. 1 to 4, even-though, it has been adjudicated by the Trial Court that they are not entitled to hold the possession. It is alleged that this Court vide order dated 06.04.2017 directed respondents No. 1 to 4 to maintain status quo in relation to the possession and title of the subject land and the applicant came to know that respondents No. 1 to 4 have misrepresented their commitment to the instructions of the Court and intentionally, not adhered to the order of the Court and, therefore, the applicant is constrained to file the present application seeking appropriate directions. It is alleged that this Court has directed respondents No. 1 to 4 to maintain status-quo in First Appeal No. 2733 of 2009 before passing the order dated 06.04.2017. 2.1 It is alleged that the applicant came to know that respondents No. 1 to 4 had preferred Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 2015 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Deesa against third parties on the ground that such third parties encroached approximately 4 Acres of subject land and though the applicant and respondents No. 17 and 18 are concerned parties in the said suit, respondents No. 1 to 4 have deliberately kept them in dark and avoid to join them as party to the proceedings and in the said suit, the Trial Court has directed the District Inspector Land Records to carry out a survey of the land and the DILR has submitted its report wherein it is clearly established that an area of approximately 4 Acres out of the total area of 52 Acres has been reduced/encroached upon by the third parties. It is alleged that on perusal of the orders passed by the Trial Court in the said suit, it also reveals that respondents No. 1 to 4 have abandoned the said suit after reaching at the stage of leading evidence and till date, no application for restoration of the suit has been filed by them. 2.2 It is alleged that respondents No. 1 to 4 are holding the possession of the subject land since 2007 and they have, at no point of time, informed/intimate the concerned Court for reduction of area of the subject land and since 1982, the parties have been at logger head with each other in various proceedings concerning the subject land and they have not disclosed in any proceedings. It is further alleged that respondents No. 1 to 4 have financially benefited themselves by giving area of approximately 4 Acres in favour of third parties and abandoned the said suit and have regularized such encroachment by an order of the Trial Court and the reduction of area is breach of the orders passed by this Court especially the order dated 06.04.2017. 2.3 It is further alleged that respondents No. 1 to 4 have failed and neglected in safeguarding the subject land and they have, deliberately, not adhered to the orders passed by this Court and not maintained the status quo of the subject land and hence, on this ground, the present applicant has prayed to issue necessary direction. 3. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 stating that they were original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 12 of 1983 (New No. 4 of 2002) and sought a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.12.1981 executed by original defendants No. 1 and 2 (respondents No. 5 and 6 in the present application) for the suit land. It is stated that at that time, the defendants were only holders recorded in the revenue records and present applicant and other legal heirs had relinquished their rights over the suit land for which revenue entry No. 600 was mutated in the revenue record which has not been challenged by the applicant herein. By narrating the litigation between the parties which has been stated that the compromise was signed by defendant No. 1’s legal heirs and since, defendant No. 3 was not party to the compromise, the suit was kept alive against the defendant. It is stated that the possession was given to the plaintiffs as per the order of the Trial Court and since then, they are in possession of the suit land and they have filed the suit against the third parties. While referring to the earlier litigation filed by the present applicant, it is stated that the present applicant himself has filed Suit No. 53 of 1982 against defendants No. 1 and 2 for declaration and permanent injunction which was got dismissed on 28.09.2000 and the applicant has filed the application being C.M.A. No. 20 of 2001 for restoration of the said suit and in that application, a compromise was entered between the parties and, therefore, the said suit was withdrawn unconditionally. Refuting the allegation of the present application in the application, it is the contention of respondents No. 1 to 4 that there is no case made out for appointment of Receiver or for taking possession during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Refuting the allegation of the present application in the application, it is the contention of respondents No. 1 to 4 that there is no case made out for appointment of Receiver or for taking possession during the pendency of the appeal. 4. The present applicant has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder, while reiterating his contention of the petition, he has submitted that the contention raised by respondents No. 1 and 4 are not tenable and there is litigation of the land as per the map of DILR and, therefore, there is need of appointment of Receiver and as plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 4 herein have taken the possession at the instance of the Court, the possession should be handed over to the applicant till disposal of the main petition. 5. Heard Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel with Mr. Jay Kansara, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mehul Shah, learned senior counsel with Mr. Rohan Lavkumar, learned counsel with Mr. Ruchir Patel, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. Perused the materials placed on record. 6. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel with Mr. Jay Kansara, learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the application as well as main petition and has submitted that the applicant has filed the application for appointment of Receiver. While referring to the documentary evidence, Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that the suit is of the year 1983, which was for specific performance against the family members. He has submitted that the injunction was granted in pending suit and in 2002, the power of attorney holder entered into sale transaction contrary to the injunction and, therefore, defendants No. 8 to 13 were joined and, thereafter, defendants No. 14 and 15 were joined. He has submitted that defendants No. 1 to 7 are the family members and as there was breach of injunction, the contempt petition was filed. He has submitted that purportedly, the power of attorney holder has handed over the possession to defendants No. 8 to 15 by consent and the Trial Court has, at the initial stage, passed the decree thereof which was challenged by way of appeal in 2005. He has submitted that the plaintiffs and power of attorney holder have accepted all the contentions of the alleged compromise in 2006 and objected by defendants No. 8 to 15. Mr. He has submitted that the plaintiffs and power of attorney holder have accepted all the contentions of the alleged compromise in 2006 and objected by defendants No. 8 to 15. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the original owner has filed an objection and pending the suit, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 8 to 15 have entered into compromise and handed over the possession of the land to the plaintiffs. 6.1 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the year 2007, the decree came to be passed by the Trial Court as per the compromise and put a stamp on alleged illegal transaction. He has submitted that against the order of the Trial Court, first appeal came to be filed by the applicant before this Court and this Court has set aside the decree and remanded back the matter to the Trial Court in 2013 and directed the Trial Court to decide the matter a fresh keeping in mind the questions raised by this Court in first appeal. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court against the said judgment and order and the same came to be dismissed by the Apex Court. 6.2 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that in the year 2015, the suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 2015 was filed by the present respondents against third party with regard to suit land. While referring to the documentary evidence, he has submitted that 4 Acres land was encroached upon by the third party and ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. He has submitted that the application for DILR mapping was made and in the fresh suit, original owners were not joined as parties. He has submitted that ad-interim injunction was vacated and the suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. He has submitted that in the year 2017, the Trial Court concluded the suit, which was remanded earlier, virtually reiterating the earlier decree passed by the Trial Court and against that order, the petition has been filed. 6.3 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that there is eminent danger to the property and conduct of the power of attorney holder and other defendants are required to be taken into consideration. 6.3 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that there is eminent danger to the property and conduct of the power of attorney holder and other defendants are required to be taken into consideration. He has submitted that the legally possession is with the owner and not with anybody else and the possession handed over to the defendants is contrary to the law and when the decree was set aside by this Court in first appeal, then, the possession ought to have been handed over to the applicant herein. He has submitted that the right to possession of the respondents, is questionable and title of the plaintiffs is seriously in dispute. He has submitted that the land is an agricultural land and advantage has been taken by the power of attorney holder and others and there is rival claim of the possession of the suit property. 6.4 While referring to the documentary evidence at page No. 278 of the main petition, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that the compromise deed dated 18.06.2007 was submitted before the Trial Court wherein in para-2, it is mentioned that defendants No. 8 to 15 have averred that the suit land belonged to deceased Ratilal Parsottamdas Patel and Kankuben Parsottamdas Patel. He has submitted that in para-4 thereof, it is averred that due to breach of injunction, the revenue entry has not been accepted by the revenue authority as it was in breach of injunction order. While referring to para-6 thereof, he has submitted that there is averment that they have handed over the possession directly to the plaintiffs and there were three sale deeds entered into between them and this is to be treated as cancelled and the amount of Rs. 31,71,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Only) has been deposited in Deesa Court where the suit is pending and the said amount may be withdrawn by defendants No. 8 to 15. While referring to the order of the Trial Court, he has submitted that in para-2 of the order, the Trial Court has passed the automatic decree and confirmed the averments that the possession of the suit land is with defendants No. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2, 5, 6 and 7. He has submitted that the order of the Trial Court has been set aside by this Court in First Appeal No. 2733 of 2009. 6.5 Mr. He has submitted that the order of the Trial Court has been set aside by this Court in First Appeal No. 2733 of 2009. 6.5 Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel has referred to the order passed by this Court in first appeal and has submitted that various questions was raised by this Court and directed the Trial Court to decide the questions a fresh. While referring to the order of the Trial Court, which came to be passed, after remand of the matter, Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that the Trial Court has disposed of the entire suit and has not passed proper decree. He has also referred to the observations of the Trial Court and has submitted that the Trial Court has specifically observed that the suit is required to be proceeded against defendant No. 3. However, in order portion, the Trial Court has treated the suit as disposed of. 6.6 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel for the applicant has also submitted that there is second suit filed in July 2015. He has submitted that it was filed against third party and, thereafter, this suit has been permitted to be disposed of. While referring to the map of DLR at page No. 45 and other documents, Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that there is loss of 4 Acre land. He has submitted that there is in-medio possession and really the possession ought to have been given to the present applicant and he was not the party to the consent decree and they ought to have been permitted to be proceeded with. He has submitted that it is likelihood that the respondents No. 1 to 4 have, admittedly, failed and neglected in maintaining the actual area of subject land and have thereby caused tremendous loss and hardship to the applicant. He has submitted that respondents No. 1 to 4 surreptitiously filed Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 2015 against third parties and, thereafter, abandoned the same and thereby intentionally given up an area of approximately 4 Acres out of the total area of the subject land. He has submitted that respondents No. 1 to 4 surreptitiously filed Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 2015 against third parties and, thereafter, abandoned the same and thereby intentionally given up an area of approximately 4 Acres out of the total area of the subject land. He has also submitted that it ex facie appears that respondents No. 1 to 4 have financially benefited themselves by giving up an area of approximately 4 Acres in favour of third parties and have thereafter abandoned the aforementioned suit and have regularized such encroachment by an order of the Trial Court. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that the reduction of area is clearly in breach of the orders passed by this Court especially the latest order dated 06.04.2017. He has urged to allow this application and to appoint Receiver with all the necessary powers to take peaceful physical possession of the subject land. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mehul Shah, learned senior counsel with Mr. Rohan Lavkumar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has submitted that the submission of learned senior counsel of the applicant is regarding admission of the main matter. While referring to the prayer of the main matter, Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel has submitted that the same relief is sought for in the present application which has been sought in the main petition and, therefore, at this stage, the prayer may not be granted. He has submitted that the status-quo order has been passed by the Court and the stay was also granted by the Trial Court. He has submitted that this Court has also taken into consideration, while passing the order on 06.04.2017 in the matter and when the status-quo order of this Court is in existence, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the applicant herein. He has submitted that the possession was handed over to the original plaintiffs as per the compromise and there are two compromise deeds on record. The compromise deed dated 18.06.2007 is entered into between defendants No. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and defendants No. 2, 5, 6 and 7 (at page No. 278 and 282 of the main petition) and between the plaintiffs and defendants No. 8 to 15 and these compromise have been acted upon and the possession of the land was handed over to the original plaintiffs. He has also submitted that the applicant is original defendant No. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 12 of 1983 and his power of attorney holder has signed the consent terms at relevant page No. 211 of the petition and thus, the action of the power of attorney holder is binding to defendant No. 5. He has submitted that original plaintiffs have received actual possession of the suit property. While referring to the original order passed by the Trial Court regarding the possession, he has submitted that in para-4 (page no. 324 of the petition), the Trial Court has specifically observed that the possession has been handed over by defendants No. 8 to 15 to the plaintiffs and the same came to be confirmed as decree of possession from defendants No. 1/1 to 1/3, 2, 5, 6 and 7. He has submitted that since then, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the owner will take such action which harm their own rights. While referring to the order of this Court passed in first appeal, Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel has submitted that this Court has only directed the Trial Court to decide certain questions which ought to have been decided by the Trial Court. While referring to para-24 of the decision of this Court in first appeal, he has submitted that the Court has only posed a question regarding handing over the possession by sale deed and regarding specific performance of the agreement. While referring to para-25 of the decision of this Court in first appeal, he has submitted that this Court has remanded back the matter only for the purpose of deciding the issue as to whether decree should be passed on the consent terms or not and if yes, against whom and also to what extent. He has submitted that this Court has also directed the Trial Court to issue appropriate direction as to whether the whole suit would stand disposed of against all the defendants or not. He has submitted that thereafter, the Trial Court has passed the order after deciding the questions raised by this Court in first appeal and has, ultimately, passed the impugned order on 09.03.2013. According to him, the suit is still pending qua defendant No. 3. He has submitted that thereafter, the Trial Court has passed the order after deciding the questions raised by this Court in first appeal and has, ultimately, passed the impugned order on 09.03.2013. According to him, the suit is still pending qua defendant No. 3. He has submitted that the possession is with the original plaintiffs and the status-quo order is in existence. He has submitted that the applicant herein-defendant No. 5 himself has signed the consent term. While referring to the agreement to sell, he has submitted that there was execution of agreement deed between the parties and the agreement to sell is dated 29.06.1981. 7.1 Mr. Mehul Shah, learned senior counsel has submitted that defendant No. 5 is resident of USA who has released his share in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. While referring to the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, especially, para-4, Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel has submitted that the applicant herein has originally filed Special Civil Suit No. 53 of 1982 against defendants No. 1 and 2 and seeking declaration and permanent injunction, which was, ultimately dismissed for default on 28.09.2000. He has submitted that the present applicant has filed Civil Misc. Application No. 20 of 2001 for restoration of the said suit and in that application, the compromise deed was entered into between the parties and hence, the suit was withdrawn unconditionally. He has invited the attention of the Court to the order passed in the said suit which is at page Nos. 176 and 177 of the application. 7.2 Mr. Mehul Shah, learned senior counsel has submitted that the present applicant and other have, initially, given up their rights, that too, unconditionally. He has submitted that the averments made in the affidavit regarding earlier suit has not been specifically denied by the applicant in his rejoinder affidavit. 7.3 Mr. Mehul Shah, learned senior counsel has drawn attention of the Court to the power of attorney given by Shashikala Pursottamdas Patel and Satbhavna Parsottamdas Patel, who have filed Special Civil Suit No. 4 of 2002 for the same property and, therefore, there was relationship of principal and agent. He has submitted that all the plaintiffs were acting upon through their power of attorney holders and first was given to Daud Mir and, thereafter, it was given to R.B. Vora. He has submitted that all the plaintiffs were acting upon through their power of attorney holders and first was given to Daud Mir and, thereafter, it was given to R.B. Vora. He has submitted that the conduct of defendant No. 5 needs to be taken into consideration. 7.4 While referring to Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 2015, Mr. Mehul Shah, learned senior counsel has submitted that as the neighbours were trying to encroach upon the land, the suit was filed and this fact can be seen from the photographs (page no. 88 onwards of the application). He has submitted that admittedly and actually, the possession is with the contesting parties and the same prayers were sought for in the main petition as well as present application. Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel has submitted that the reasons assigned for appointment of Receiver is on the ground of filing the suit in the year 2015 by the answering respondents. He has submitted that so far as the measurement of DLR is concerned, the contesting respondents have already filed objections thereon on the same date. He has submitted that since from the very beginning, the application for measurement through DLR was made which is at page No. 62 to 72 of the application. He has submitted that the application was also filed for police protection and all these actions were taken by contesting respondents to protect the suit land. According to the him, the contesting respondents have taken positive steps and incurred expenses towards the land and they are protecting the same. He has submitted that by filing the suit in 2015 against third parties by the plaintiffs cannot give any cause of action to the applicant herein. According to him, had the suit not filed by the contesting respondents, then, the applicant herein might have some cause of action. While relying upon the documents, he has submitted that the false statement has been made by the applicant regarding knowledge. According to him, he has knowledge from the very beginning about the earlier litigations regarding the land in question. While relying upon the documents, he has submitted that the false statement has been made by the applicant regarding knowledge. According to him, he has knowledge from the very beginning about the earlier litigations regarding the land in question. He has submitted that the contesting respondents have every right to be in possession and, therefore, there is no need of appointment of Receiver and he has submitted that defendant No. 5 i.e. present applicant has only arguable case and there is no eminent danger and no prima-facie case is in his favour and de facto possession is with the original plaintiffs since 2007. While relying upon the following decisions, Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel has urged to dismiss the present application: (i) Harishbhai Kantilal Shah vs. Ismalbhai Dadabhai Patel and Another, 2009 (3) GLH 175 (ii) S. Saleema Bi vs. S. Pyari Begum and Others, (2000) 9 SCC 560 (iii) Parmanand Patel (Dead) by LRs. and Others vs. Sudha A. Chowgule and Others, (2009) 11 SCC 127 8. In rejoinder, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel with Mr. Jay Kansara, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that certain measurement was done in the year 2010 and the suit came to be filed in the year 2015 by the contesting respondents. He has submitted that the consent decree was passed in the year 2007 and N. A. Permission was sought in the year 2012. He has also referred to the map of the DILR, which is produced at page No. 45 of the application and has submitted that in the said map, there is averment regarding the encroachment. He has submitted that the suit for simplicitor was filed and not for possession. He has submitted that there is fencing, which was old one. He has submitted that though there is encroachment on the land, the contesting respondents have not filed any suit for possession even on the basis of the report of the DLR and the respondents have filed only suit for simplicitor which was also got dismissed. He has submitted that there is already loss of 4 Acre land. Further according to him, there is no argument that defendants have no titled. He has submitted that there is no consideration between the parties. 8.1 Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel with Mr. He has submitted that there is already loss of 4 Acre land. Further according to him, there is no argument that defendants have no titled. He has submitted that there is no consideration between the parties. 8.1 Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel with Mr. Jay Kansara, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that sale deeds in favour of Malis are illegal and defendant No. 5 i.e. applicant is real owner and he is struggling for his right. Regarding appointment of Receiver, Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel has submitted that there is no straitjacket formula for appointment of Receiver and the Court has every power to appoint Receiver in appropriate cases and the present case is the same wherein there are special circumstances in existence and considering the conduct of the contesting defendants, Receiver be appointed. According to him, the question of possession is to be looked into at the time of the suit and in the present case, at the time of filing of the suit, the possession of the land was with the applicant and same has been taken away by collusion and by the order of the Court which is illegal. According to him, no decree of possession was passed on merits but and the Trial Court only based its order on the basis of the compromise between the parties. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that this case is of in-medio possession. He has submitted that there is no sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to him, the Court can even pass ex-parte order of appointment of Receiver and handing over of possession in a given case. According to him, the suit is still pending against defendant No. 3. He has submitted that the interim reliefs sought for be granted in the present case. 9. In the case of Harishbhai Kantilal Shah, this Court has held and observed in para-8 as under:- 8. The provisions of Order 40 Rule 1 provide for appointment of a Receiver where it appears to the court to be "just and convenient." As the appointment of a Receiver is one of the harshest measures available in law which is resorted to in unavoidable circumstances, it must also be reflected from the record that there are urgent circumstances prevailing, that necessitate the appointment of a Receiver. The discretion vested in the Court must be exercised in consonance with the provisions of law, where it appears that the appointment of a Receiver is "just and convenient" and such circumstances should normally be reflected in the order. In other words, the facts and circumstances of the case should justify the appointment of a receiver.....” 10. This Court, in the aforesaid decision, has also relied on the decision of Madras High Court, in the case of T. Krishnaswamy Chetty vs. C. Thangavelu Chetty, AIR 1955 Madras 430, wherein it was held as under:- “The appointment of a receiver is recognised as one of the harshest remedies which the law provides for the enforcement of rights and is allowable only in extreme cases and in circumstances where the interest of the person seeking the appointment of a receiver is exposed to manifest peril. Therefore, this exceedingly delicate and responsible duty has to be discharged by the Court with the utmost caution and only when the five requirements embodied in the words "just and convenient" in O. 40, R. 1 are fulfilled by the facts of the case under consideration. These five requirements are: (1) The appointment of a receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court. (2) The Court should not appoint a receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima- facie he has a very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit. (3) Not only must the plaintiff show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but, he must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action and of his own right he must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. The element of danger is an important consideration. (4) An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a "de facto" possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. It would be different where the property is shown to be "in medio" that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one. (5) The Court, on the application made for the appointment of a receiver, looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application and will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from blame.” 11. (5) The Court, on the application made for the appointment of a receiver, looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application and will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from blame.” 11. In the case of S. Saleema Bi (supra), the Apex Court has observed 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.” 12. In the case of Parmanand Patel (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in para-15 as under:- “15.......A receiver, having regard to the provisions contained in Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is appointed only when it is found to be just and convenient to do so. Appointment of a receiver pending suit is a matter which is within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. Ordinarily, the Court would not appoint a receiver save and except on a prima-facie finding that the plaintiff has an excellent chance of success in the suit. It is also for the plaintiff not only to show a case of adverse and conflict claims of property but also emergency, danger or loss demanding immediate action. Element of danger is an important consideration. Ordinarily, a receiver would not be appointed unless a case has been made out which may deprive the defendant of a de facto possession. For the said purpose, conduct of the parties would also be relevant.” 13. Order XL Rule 1 of the CPC dealt with the provisions relating to appointment of Receivers which reads as under:- R.1 Appointment of receivers - (1) Where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order:- (a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree. (b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property. (c) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver. (b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property. (c) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver. (d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bringing and defending suits and for the realization, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks fit. (2) Nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property any person whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove. 14. This rule authorises a Court to appoint a receiver whenever it appears to it to be just and convenient to do so. The matter is left to the discretion of the Court. Such discretion, however, cannot be exercised in arbitrarily, manner. The object and purpose of the appointment of a Receiver may generally be stated to be the preservation of the subject matter of the litigation pending a judicial determination of the rights of the parties thereto. Where the party concerned has shown neither a prima-facie case in is favour nor any such emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action to save property, Receiver cannot be appointed. The Court does not, at the time of appointment of a Receiver, arrive at any final decision on the merits of the case, its aim being merely to preserve the status quo ante during the litigation. 15. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsels for both the parties and materials placed on record and the decisions cited at the Bar and the provisions relating to the appointment of Receiver, it is found that earlier this Court has remanded the matter back by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court with direction to decide various points raised by this Court in First Appeal No. 2733 of 2009 decided on 09.12.2013 and directed the Trial Court to take a fresh decision and status-quo order was also passed by this Court. It also appears from the record that after receipt of the order of this Court directing the Trial Court to decide the matter a fresh, instead of deciding the suit a fresh, the Trial Court has not decided the suit a fresh, but has only answered the points which were raised by this Court in above appeal. It also appears that vide order dated 17.07.2015, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deesa has not even cared to follow the direction of this Court. It also appears from the order that while answering the points raised in the first appeal by this Court, he has simply stated that as the suit was earlier shown as finally disposed of, the matter stands shown as disposed of. It also appears from the impugned order that the Trial Court has observed that the suit is required to be proceeded against defendant No. 3. However, in para- 14, the Trial Court has directed that the suit to be shown as disposed of. It appears that, the Trial Court has not even bothered to read the order of this Court which was passed in the aforesaid first appeal. This shows complete non-application of mind on the part of the Trial Court. However, that fact is only referred to with a view to show that there is controversy regarding the right of property between the parties. 16. It appears from the record that on account of earlier judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which was subject matter of the aforesaid first appeal, the possession of the property in question has been given to the plaintiff pending the suit. Now, admittedly, there is question of possession of the suit land. It is an admitted fact that the order of status-quo regarding possession is in existence. Now, if there is order of status-quo then no party could sell or transfer the property in any manner. 17. The apprehension of the present applicant regarding waste of the property is concerned, it requires proof thereof. The case for appointment of Receiver is not made out from the material placed on record. The main prayer of the applicant herein is to direct the respondents to handover the possession of the property to him during the pendency of this appeal. The apprehension of the present applicant regarding waste of the property is concerned, it requires proof thereof. The case for appointment of Receiver is not made out from the material placed on record. The main prayer of the applicant herein is to direct the respondents to handover the possession of the property to him during the pendency of this appeal. But when there is order of status-quo passed by this Court, especially, the prayer being in the nature of granting decree at admission stage, cannot be granted, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the main prayer of getting possession from the respondents pending hearing of the Special Civil Application cannot be granted in favour of the applicant, at this stage. 18. Now, it is pertinent to note that the applicant has filed application on the basis that it has been reflected in the map prepared by the DILR that there is reduction of 4 Acre land and on the ground that the possession of the plaintiffs i.e. respondents No. 1 to 4 cannot be said to be legal one and it was obtained in illegal manner, the same should not be protected. It appears from the record that respondents No. 1 to 4 have specifically averred in their affidavit-in-reply that the applicant herein has filed Suit No. 53 of 1982 which came to be dismissed and, thereafter, the applicant has filed C.M.A. No. 20 of 2001 for restoration of the said suit and in that application, a compromise was entered into between the parties and the suit came to be withdrawn. This fact narrated in the affidavit-in-reply has not been specifically denied by the applicant herein. It is pertinent to note that the applicant herein seeks possession back during the pendency of the main petition. It appears that the same prayer has been sought for in the main petition regarding taking over the possession. 19. So far as the relief for appointment of Receiver is concerned, it appears from the record that respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed one suit against third party for protection of the land. It also appears that in the said suit, the injunction has been granted against the defendants thereof and the order of status-quo has been granted by the Trial Court. It also appears that in the said suit, the injunction has been granted against the defendants thereof and the order of status-quo has been granted by the Trial Court. In view of overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercising judicial discretion under Order XL of the CPC for appointment of Receiver. 20. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into merits of the case as main petition is pending and whatever observation made hereinabove is only for deciding the present civil application for appointment of Receiver and for getting back the possession during the pendency of the main petition. The observation made herein shall not be construed as final view of this Court. 21. With the above observations, the present application is dismissed. No order as to costs.