Civil Revision No. 2642 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2642 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.4.2011 *** Parbandhak Committee Gurdwara Diwan Asthan, Masjid Kumara, Central Town, Jalandhar .. Petitioner Vs. Doaba Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Adda Hoshiarpur (Regd.) & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Respondent No.1 Doaba Sri Guru Singh Sabha and others filed a suit for declaration that the registration granted to the petitioner be declared as illegal, null and void and the same is not binding upon it to manage and control the affairs of Gurudwara Diwan Asthan, Central Town Jallandhar (hereinafter referred to as Gurdwara, in short). In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC for appointment of a Receiver. By dint of impugned order dated 28.2.2011 the said application was disposed of and SDM of the area concerned was appointed as Receiver to take control of Golak (cash box) of Gurdwara, to receive the rent and other offerings and to maintain accounts of the same. It is also directed that Golak would be opened by the Receiver in the presence of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 through Amar Singh Kahlon on every month and attendance sheet shall be prepared. Dis-satisfied with the same, petitioner filed an appeal, but the same has been dismissed by dint of order dated 25.3.2011, leading to the institution of present revision petition. Heard. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner. Both Civil Revision No. 2642 of 2011 2 the Courts below have failed to consider that the appointment of Receiver is regarded as one of the harshest remedy which the law provides for the enforcement of its rights; that remedy is available only in extreme cases and in a situation where interest of the person seeking appointment of Receiver is exposed to manifest peril. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case of Parmanand Patel (Dead) by LR Vs. Sudha A. Chowgule 2009 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1054. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has invested with the Court a discretionary jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver when it appears to the Court “to be just and convenient” to do so. To order appointment of a Receiver the person seeking appointment has to show that he has a strong case and prima facie title to the property and further that the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted away or damaged. Appointment of the Receiver is a matter of judicial discretion intended to safeguard the rights of parties and that ends of justice are not defeated. A well founded fear that the property in question will be dissipated or that other irreparable mischief may be done unless the court gives its protection is a good ground to appoint a Receiver. Adverting to the case of the case in hand, both the parties are staking their respective claims over the management and control of Gurdwara. This has resulted into arising of a state of confusion and there are every chances of mis-use and mis-appropriation of the funds, donated by the devotees. It is still to be decided as to who is entitled to take over the control and charge of Gurdawara. To avoid any such intricacies and to preserve the sanctity, spirituality of a holy place and peace and harmony amongst the parties, during the pendency of the suit, the Courts below have rightly ordered for appointment of a Receiver to take control of the affairs of the Gurdwara. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 25, 2011 Jiten