ORDER : 1. The writ petition at hands has been preferred against the order dated 12.01.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) vide which petitioners’ appeal against the order dated 10.12.2013, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) had been rejected. 2. The facts within the precincts of the legality of the order under challenge run as under:- The plaintiff’s prepositus Kanhaiyalal filed a suit against the respondents for rendition of accounts and dissolution of a partnership firm, in which he was a partner. During the pendency of the suit aforesaid, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) seeking appointment of Receiver. The Trial Court appointed one Satyanarayan Vyas as Receiver, thereafter when the matter came up before this Court in Appeal No. 62/1984, one of the partner-respondent Mr. Deendayal Sharda was appointed as a Receiver. The said appeal came to be disposed of finally on 06.02.1984 with certain mandates to the Receiver duly enumerated in the order. 3. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners moved another application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code before this Court, which was registered as Civil Misc. Application No. 114/1994. It was inter-alia contended that the said Receiver Mr. Deendayal Sharda has failed to adhere to the terms of the order dated 16.02.1984 and has proceeded in a manner not conducive to his responsibilities as Receiver. This Court, vide its order dated 07.03.1999, disposed of the said application and permitted the petitioners to move the trial court, with the following observations:- “As regards the removal of Shri Deen Dayal as a receiver and appointment of a fresh receiver, the learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant be permitted to make a prayer in this regard before the trial court. Learned counsel for the non-applicant does not object to this prayer and he agrees that the application for removal of non-applicant from the post of receiver as well as the application for enforcement of the order of the Court under Rule 4 of Order 40 C.P.C. may be moved before the trial court and the same may be disposed of in accordance with law. The application is disposed of accordingly.” 4. The application is disposed of accordingly.” 4. Subsequent to the above order dated 07.05.1999, the petitioners moved an application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the trial court with assertions that the respondent-Receiver Deendayal Sharda has not properly maintained the machinery and building of the partnership firm and as a matter of fact, has closed the business and removed the machinery. It was also alleged that instead of carrying on the business of the firm, the Receiver has let out the property unauthorisedly and due to which, the property belonging to the firm is likely to be taken over by RIICO-the lessor, which has initiated proceedings for eviction of the firm/tenants. 5. The respondent-Receiver filed reply to the said application; denied the allegations levelled therein and requested the trial court to reject the petitioners’ application for substitution of the Receiver. The subject application, filed under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code was however rejected by the trial court, vide its order dated 10.12.2013. While rejecting the application for substitution of the Receiver, the trial court observed that the Receiver has not committed any irregularly in constructing godown etc. letting out or in changing the nature of the property. The trial court has held that the Receiver was given the machinery and factory on rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month, and since such amount has been deposited regularly no breach can be found. The trial court recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to prove that the Receiver has acted beyond the terms of his appointment. It has also been recorded that the Receiver has not breached the conditions contained in the order of appointment dated 06.02.1984. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the trial court, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(s) of the Code, which was registered as Appeal No. 1/2014 and came to be decided by the appellate court vide its order dated 12.01.2017. 7. The appellate court, after dealing with the material and evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the Receiver, namely, Deendayal Sharda, has acted in defiance of the terms of the order dated 25.01.1984, so also mandate of Order XL Rules 3 and 4 of the Code. 7. The appellate court, after dealing with the material and evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the Receiver, namely, Deendayal Sharda, has acted in defiance of the terms of the order dated 25.01.1984, so also mandate of Order XL Rules 3 and 4 of the Code. It will be of great use to reproduce the relevant part, which reads thus:- ^^,slh fLFkfr esa O;ogkj ÁfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 40 fu;e 3 ds vUrxZr QeZ dh oknxzLr lEifRr Hkwfe] Hkou o e'khujh ds laca/k esa fjlhoj dk fof/kr% Áca/ku] lqj{kk ,oa vfHkj{kk dk drZO; Fkk] ftlds laca/k esa mlds }kjk drZO;ksa dh vikyuk djuk Lkkfcr gksrk gSA vr% ;ksX; vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ@ÁkFkhZx.k ds rdZ cyiw.kZ Árhr gksrs gSA vr% bl laca/k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s fu"d"kZ vfHkys[k ij vk;h lk{; ds vuqdwy mfpr ,oa laxr ugha gSA vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s fu"d"kZ ,oa mu ij vk/kkfjr vkns'k fnukad 10-12-2013 vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk nhokuh fofo/k ÁkFkZuk i= la[;k 04@2012 dUgS;kyky ds dk;e eqdke cuke nhun;ky esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 10-12-2013 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 8. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the appellate court, however, got misdirected and found its hands tied by the fact that the Receiver was originally appointed by the High Court, vide its order dated 25.01.1984. The appellate Court got more influenced by the stipulation contained in Condition No. 7 of the said order, wherein it was provided that all the disputes relating to rights of the parties will be adjudicated upon by the court, while passing the decree of rendition of accounts. 9. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.01.2017, passed by the learned appellate court, Mr. Akshay Nagori, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the appellate Court has committed a grave error of law in refusing to appoint the Receiver, simply being swayed by Condition No. 7, stipulated in this Court’s order dated 16.02.1984. He submitted that the Condition No. 7, in the order was meant only in relation to the disputes between the parties to the suit; Deendayan Sharda though was a partner and party to the suit, but nevertheless, he was a Receiver appointed by the High Court. The appellate Court was required to decide petitioners’ appeal while keeping into mind that Deendayal Sharda was a Receiver, urged learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Mr. The appellate Court was required to decide petitioners’ appeal while keeping into mind that Deendayal Sharda was a Receiver, urged learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Mr. Nagori fervently argued that the appellate Court concurred with the contentions of the petitioners throughout and went ahead to record a finding of fact that the Receiver has violated not only his mandate but has also acted contrary to provisions contained in Order XL Rules 3 and 4 of the Code, but then strangely rejected the appeal. He argued that having upturned the finding of fact recorded by the trial court, the appellate Court was required to allow the appeal in toto and appoint another Receiver in place of Mr. Deendayal Sharda. 11. Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, supported the order under challenge and argued that there is no infirmity warranting interference by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction. While asserting that the respondent has not flouted any of the conditions contained in the order of the High Court, he tried to navigate the Court through certain documents and evidence to lend support to his assertions. Mr. Jain also submitted that though the petitioners’ suit was for partition and rendition of accounts, he has sought to substitute the existing Receiver vide subject application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code. His argument in this regard has been that the prayer in the application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot travel beyond the prayer made in the suit. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the suit. 13. A simple look at the order passed by the appellate Court leaves no room for ambiguity that the appellate court has practically set aside each of the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court in its order dated 10.12.2013, at the time of dealing with the petitioners’ application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code. It is pertinent to note that in para no. 20 of the order (reproduced above), the learned appellate Court has unequivocally held that the Receiver has derelicted from his duties and has failed to manage and maintain the land, building and machinery of the partnership firm, for which he was obliged. 14. It is pertinent to note that in para no. 20 of the order (reproduced above), the learned appellate Court has unequivocally held that the Receiver has derelicted from his duties and has failed to manage and maintain the land, building and machinery of the partnership firm, for which he was obliged. 14. The appellate Court has even gone to the extent of quashing the order dated 10.12.2013, passed by the trial court in the subject Application No. 04/2012. But, having set aside the said order, instead of discharging Mr. Deendayal Sharda of his duties as Receiver, the appellate Court took a detour and refused to substitute the Receiver, essentially being influenced by the fact that he had been appointed by the High Court. 15. According to me, the apprehension of the appellate Court was misplaced. Once this Court had permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application before the Trial Court, it was open for the Trial Court/appellate Court to appoint/substitute the Receiver. 16. In considered opinion of this Court, the scope and ambit of Order XL Rule 1 of the Code are entirely different. While dealing with an application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code, if the Court comes to a conclusion that the Receiver has acted in defiance of the directions issued to him, or if the Court finds that the Receiver has acted contrary to the provisions of Rules (2) and (3) of Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is imperative to remove such Receiver and appoint another person in his place. The power to appoint includes power to remove also. Hence the Court vested with the power to appoint Receiver has power to substitute also. 17. According to me, Condition No. 7 of the order dated 16.02.1984, passed by this Court was not an impediment in the way of the appellate court, in removing the Receiver with a view to appoint a new person in his place. I deem it apt to reproduce the condition no. (7) here-infra:- “(7) It will be open to the plaintiff to dispute the list of creditors and the court shall adjudicate upon such disputes. All other disputes relating the rights of the parties will also be adjudicated upon by the court. While passing the decree for rendition of account.” 18. I deem it apt to reproduce the condition no. (7) here-infra:- “(7) It will be open to the plaintiff to dispute the list of creditors and the court shall adjudicate upon such disputes. All other disputes relating the rights of the parties will also be adjudicated upon by the court. While passing the decree for rendition of account.” 18. The Condition No. 7 of the order dated 16.02.1984 was in relation to the rights of the parties to the suit, viz. plaintiffs and defendant. It is true that Mr. Deendayal Sharda is/was a party to the suit as a defendant, but nevertheless, he was a Receiver and his position as a Receiver was distinct from his position as a partner. The petitioners’ application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code was required to be examined and decided, while considering Mr. Deendayal Sharda as a Receiver and not as a party. 19. As such, the learned appellate Court has misdirected itself taking the Condition No. 7 of the order dated 16.02.1984 as an impediment in his way of substituting the Receiver. 20. The contention of Mr. Jain that the Receiver Mr. Deendayal Sharda has not flouted any of the Conditions of the order dated 25.01.1984 or the order dated 16.02.1984, cannot be considered much less accepted. It is not in dispute that the appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding in para No. 20 of its order that the Receiver has failed to adhere to his obligations as a Receiver. The respondent-Receiver has not laid any challenge to such finding, expressly recorded in para No. 20 of the order of the appellate Court. It is to be noted that the appellate Court has as a matter of fact set aside the entire order of the trial Court passed on petitioners’ application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The findings of fact recorded by the appellate Court has attained finality, sans any challenge made there-against. This being the fact-situation, Mr. Jain cannot be heard to contend that the respondent-Receiver has not violated any of his mandates or has acted in good faith. 21. Last argument that the prayer made in the application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot travel beyond the relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit, is an argument in disguise and preposterous to say the least. 21. Last argument that the prayer made in the application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot travel beyond the relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit, is an argument in disguise and preposterous to say the least. The naive argument advanced by Mr. Jain, perhaps being influenced by the principle that a decree cannot travel beyond the judgment is meant to be rejected and thus rejected. 22. The powers of the Court under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are of wide amplitude and the Court concerned, while appointing a Receiver, is required to ensure that the property or subject matter of the dispute is protected and maintained properly during the pendency of the suit. 23. For what has been discussed above, the writ petition is allowed; the order of the appellate Court to the extent it has refused to appoint Receiver is set aside; and Mr. Deendayal Sharda is removed from the position of Receiver of the firm. 24. The District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan shall appoint a new Receiver in place of Mr. Deendayal Sharda, on or before 15.03.2019. 25. While appointing new Receiver, the learned District Judge shall appoint any person other than the parties to the suit, and preferably a retired judicial officer. He shall also fix appropriate remuneration to be paid to the Receiver. Other terms and conditions, mentioned in the order dated 25.01.1984 and order dated 16.02.1984, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the new incumbent. 26. The erstwhile Receiver Mr. Deendayal Sharda shall hand-over the accounts and charge to the new Receiver forthwith. 27. A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan for doing the needful. 28. Writ petition allowed. Stay Petition No. 3236/2017 stands disposed of.