IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.433 of 2009 RAJENDRA SINGH, Son of Late Shivdhari Singh, resident of Village- Bejulpur Tola Bishunpurwa, P.O. Chainpur, P.S. Turkaulia, District-East Champaran..............................Plaintiff/Appellant. Versus 1. Kamal Singh @ Kamaldeo Singh. 2. Birendra Singh. Both sons of Chandradeo Singh. 3. Chandradeo Singh, Son of Late Laldhari Singh. All residents of Village-Bijulpur Tola,Bishunpurwa, P.O.- Chainpur, P.S. Turkaulia, District-East Champaran. ............Defendants/Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant: Mr. Virendra Kuar, Advocate. For the Defendants: Mr.Uma Shankar Verma, Advocate. ---------- 04. 25.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. This Miscellaneous Appeal has come under the heading for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since all the respondents have appeared and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it has been heard at length and is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The appellant has filed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Subordinate Judge-IV, Motihari, in Title Suit No. 164 of 2007 by which he has allowed the petition filed by the defendants-respondents under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and appointed Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate, as a receiver of the suit properties. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.09.2008, it appears that the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant did not oppose the application filed by the defendants-respondents for appointment of 2 receiver and stated that for the proper management of the property, the receiver may be appointed and only with the consent of both the parties, the said Advocate Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh was appointed as a receiver by the court below. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff-appellant never gave consent for appointment of a receiver and, as a matter of fact, against the petition filed by the defendants- respondents under Order XL Rule 1, he had filed an objection petition in which various grounds have been taken that it is not a fit case for the appointment of the receiver. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the respondents having failed to prove any imminent danger to and/or alienation of the property, the court below ought not to have allowed the petition for appointment of receiver. Learned counsel contends that since only 10 Bighas of land were involved in the present matter, the court below ought not to have allowed the application for the appointment of the receiver. It is urged that the principles for appointment of receiver which have been well settled in the various decisions of this Court, have not been followed in the present matter before the order was passed for appointment of receiver. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision of this court reported in Mostt. Patri Devi @ Girja Devi and Anr. Vs. Ganesh Lal Pradhan and Ors. :2003(2)P.L.J.R. 864 and also another decision in the case of Vijai 3 Kumar Vs. Smt. Kiran Devi & Ors: 2007(3) P.L.J.R. 417. It is submitted by the learned counsel on the strength of the said decisions that the principles for appointment of receiver as laid down by the two learned Single Judges of this Court have not been followed while passing the order in the present matter. Learned counsel for the defendants-respondents, on the other hand, submits that mere filing of an objection petition does not mean that consent could not have been given at a later stage. It is contended that the consent given by the learned counsel for the appellant has been recorded in its order dated 24.09.2008 by the court below and it is not open to the appellant to challenge the same particularly keeping in view the fact that the Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order has been filed after nearly 11 months, i.e., on 18.8.2009, whereas the order itself is dated 24.09.2008. It is thus, submitted by learned counsel that the challenge to the impugned order is merely an afterthought and the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Appeal clearly shows that the order was rightly passed on consent of the parties. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant was at all times aware of passing of the order and it is not that the consent has been given behind the back of the appellant; yet no such application was filed in the court below stating that he had not given any consent for the appointment of the receiver and immediately after the said appointment, he has not come forward to state that his counsel has wrongly given consent behind his back. It is further 4 submitted that as early as on 21.10.2008 the receiver was compelled to file an F.I.R. being Turkaulia P.S. Case No. 220 of 2008 (Annexure-B to the rejoinder) against the appellant and his son for having forcibly harvested the crops and thus the appellant was aware of the appointment of receiver. Learned counsel for the defendants-respondents also refers to the application filed on 03.07.2009 by the appellant in the court below for discharge of the receiver which clearly goes to show that on that date, i.e., 03.07.2009, he had accepted the position that the receiver had been appointed with his consent, otherwise instead of filing a petition for discharge of the receiver in the court below he ought of have challenged the order itself immediately. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon various decisions laying down the principles on which the receiver can be appointed including in case of the joint family property, i.e., Maharaja Jagat Singh Vs. Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh & Ors.: A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1721, Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Sinha Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha :A.I.R. 1948 Patna 195 and Rabindra Thakur & Ors Vs. Chandeshwar Thakur & Ors. :2006(1) P.L.J.R. 607. On a consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and materials available on record, this Court finds sufficient force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is evident from the impugned order dated 24.09. 2008 itself that the order has been passed on the consent given by its 5 counsel. It is further evident from the materials on record that the appellant also was at all times aware of the passing of the impugned order and there is nothing to show that he immediately took the stand that his counsel had wrongly given consent for the appointment of receiver by filing a petition in that regard. Merely, filing of the objection petition to the application for appointment of receiver does not mean that the parties at later stage cannot give consent for appointment of receiver. The grounds taken by the appellant does not have any relevance in the matter as it is evident from the materials on the record that the appellant was otherwise pursuing the matter in the court below and also other litigations. In any case, if a counsel has wrongly given consent behind the back of the litigant, then the remedy of the litigant does not lie by filing an appeal before the higher forum; rather it is for the concerned litigants to initiate in the first place a proper proceeding against his counsel for having wrongly given consent. No such action has been taken by the appellant. In the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 24.09.2008 having been passed with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for interfering with the same. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. U.K. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J)