Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Receivership in the temple town of Mathura has become the new norm. Most of the famous and ancient temples are in the grip of legal battle, restraining the temple trust, its Shebait and the Committee to manage its affairs and are being run by persons appointed by the Court as Receivers under Order XL of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as 'C.P.C.').

2. Out of the list of 197 temples as provided by District Judge, Mathura on 23.05.2024, there are civil litigations pending of these temples situated at Vrindavan, Govardhan, Baldeo, Gokul, Barsana, Maath etc. The litigation ranges from the year 1923 till the year 2024. In these famous temples of Vrindavan, Govardhan and Barasana, practising advocates of Mathura Court have been appointed Receivers. The interest of Receiver lies in keeping the litigation pending. No effort is made to conclude the civil proceedings, as the entire control of temple administration vest in the hands of Receiver. Most of the litigation is in respect of management of temples and appointment of Receivers.

(5) The Court, on the application 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. He must come to Court with clean hands and should not have disentitled himself to the equitable relief by laches, delay, acquiescence etc."

22. The discretion given to the Court has to be exercised with great care and caution. It cannot in a routine manner appoint Receiver and continue the management of the temple/trust through such appointments. Every endeavour should be there to get the dispute decided at the earliest without prolonging it and running the entire show through the Receivers.

23. The present case is an example where the original suit was filed in the year 1999 claiming relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in management and running of the temple. The suit is pending for last 25 years, and report of District Judge reveals that only plaintiff evidence has taken place. No effort has been made by court concerned to expedite the matter and decide it. Only application for appointment of Receiver has been considered on number of occasions and the temple trust is being run through Receivers. The entire dispute hinges around the appointment of Receiver. Earlier this Court in the year 2021 had set aside the order of court below appointing an advocate as Receiver and remanded back the matter for consideration afresh.

24. The officer against whom contempt has been alleged has now proceeded to appoint a Seven Member Committee of Receivers which includes three advocates. The order dated 28.03.2023 frustrates the provision of Order XL Rule 1 C.P.C.

25. In the garb of provisions of Order XL Rule 1 C.P.C., the Courts cannot prolong litigation and run a temple/trust or manage any suit property through Receiver without making any effort to decide the lis. 25 long years have elapsed and only plaintiff evidence has taken place. Successive litigations have come to this Court only questioning the very legality of appointment of Receiver. The suit is proceeding at snail pace. There is no effort either on the part of the court below or the Receiver who has been appointed to get the suit decided. Rule 1(d) of Order XL clearly provides that all powers, such as, bringing and defending suits and for realisation, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, collection of rents and profits thereto, the application and disposal of such rents and profits and the execution of documents are all conferred upon the Receiver.