Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2475-2476  OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.22705-22706 of 2013)

M/s. Sherali Khan Mohamed Manekia …Appellant(s)

                versus

The State of Maharashtra  and others        … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

   Leave granted.

2. In  the instant  appeals  by special  leave the appellant  

assailed the order dated 14th January, 2013 passed by the  

learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  in  Court  

Receiver’s Report No.25 of 2007 and Additional Report No.  

383 of 2012, whereby the High Court while disposing of the  

1

Page 2

Report of the Court Receiver held that after the disposal of  

First  Appeal  No.  767 of 1998 and dismissal  of  the special  

leave  petition,  the  Receiver  deemed  to  have  been  

discharged.

3. It  appears  that  the  suit  property  was  declared  as  

evacuee  property  and  the  same  was  purchased  by  the  

appellant in an auction sale as far back as on 15.6.1964.  In  

the year 1980, the appellant filed a suit being Civil Suit No.  

37 of 1980 before the District Judge, Thane Court seeking  

specific  performance  of  the  sale  of  the  property  and  

possession  and  interim  relief  of  injunction  restraining  the  

defendants therein from carrying on further construction on  

the suit property. The appellant further made a prayer for  

appointment of Receiver.

4. The trial court rejected the prayer for appointment of  

Receiver by order dated 3.5.1980 and against that, appellant  

moved  the  High  Court  in  First  Appeal,  which  was  finally  

2

Page 3

heard and order dated 22.7.1980 was passed appointing the  

Court Receiver.  The High Court while making appointment  

of  the  Receiver  directed  to  take  possession  of  the  suit  

property. All the persons who were in actual possession of  

any part of the suit property were continued to remain in  

possession.  The Receiver was directed to collect rent and  

compensation as the case may be from all  the persons in  

actual  possession  after  verifying  from them their  present  

right  to  remain  in  possession.  The  High  Court  further  

directed  that  the  Receiver  should  take  suitable  direction  

from the court if he was presented with any  particular  

difficulty.

5. Indisputably,  the  suit  was  finally  disposed  of  on  

4.2.1998.   While  disposing  the  suit,  the  trial  court  gave  

liberty to the plaintiff-appellant to move the High Court for  

directions for taking possession of the suit property from the  

Court Receiver so appointed by the High Court.

3

Page 4

6. As against the judgment and decree of the trial court,  

First Appeal was filed being F.A. No.767 of 1988, which was  

finally heard and dismissed by the High Court vide judgment  

dated 22.12.2004.  The special leave petition filed against  

the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  was  also  dismissed  on  

19.2.2007.

7. It  further  reveals  from  the  record  that  the  Court  

Receiver so appointed submitted Report No.25/2007 before  

the  High  Court  seeking  directions  with  regard  to  the  

encroachment  on  the  suit  property  and  handing  over  

possession  to  the  appellant.   The  Court  Receiver  also  

submitted Additional Report No.383 of 2012.  The High Court  

after  taking  into  consideration  these  Court  Receiver’s  

reports, passed the impugned order holding that the receiver  

shall be deemed to have been discharged after the dismissal  

of the first appeal by the High Court, followed by dismissal of  

the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court.

4

Page 5

8. Assailing  the  impugned  order,  Mr.  Shyam  Divan,  

learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant,  

submitted  that  even  after  the  disposal  of  the  appeal,  

affirming  the  judgment  and  decree  of  the  trial  court,  the  

Court Receiver continues in his office till  he is  discharged  

and fulfills all the incidental obligations that are cast upon  

him by virtue of his appointment and till he renders account  

to the Commissioner of Accounts.   

9. The  short  question,  therefore,  that  falls  for  

consideration  is  as  to  whether  after  the  disposal   of  the  

appeal, the Court Receiver stands discharged or whether he  

continues in his office till an order of discharge is passed by  

the Court?

10. The High Court in the impugned order observed:

“The  directions  cannot  be  issued  only  on  assumption  that  this  Court  was  monitoring  the  matter for all these years irrespective of disposal of  the  Appeal  from  Order.   That  may  be  the  understanding of parties, but before me nothing has  been  placed  which  would  enable  me  to  hold  that  

5

Page 6

from 1983 till this report was filed in the year 2007,  this Court had issued any directions or had passed  any  orders  indicative  of  control  over  the  Court  Receiver.   In fact the Court Receiver’s  reports  and  paragraphs of  which have been reproduced by me  hereinabove,  would  indicate  that  it  is  only  the  correspondence  and  meetings  of  parties  with  the  Court Receiver or his representative that have been  referred to.  The Court Receiver seems to b e now for  the first time informing the Court of such meetings  and  contents  of  letters.   He  has  not  sought  any  direction  for  all  these  decades  and  because  the  parties  were  engaging  and  involving  him  in  correspondence, does not mean that the Court has in  any way continued him.  If it is the understanding of  parties that the Court Receiver continues, then, that  cannot be proved only by his correspondence.  The  Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, on account of  his own limitation and lack of understanding may be  under an impression that he continues as a Receiver  of  the  immovable  property  despite  disposal  of  the  Appeal  from  Order,  main  suit,  First  Appeal  and  thereafter,  the  proceedings  before  the  Honourable  Supreme Court.  If that is the understanding which he  has given to parties or parties have given to him and  he  entertains  correspondence  and  holds  meetings,  by itself and without anything more cannot assist the  Plaintiffs/Decree  Holders.   The  Court  cannot  issue  any directions on such reports and filed belatedly.  In  fact  the  Plaintiffs/Decree  Holders  understood  that  they  have  to  proceed  to  execute  and  enforce  the  Decree  for  possession  in  their  favour  by  adopting  appropriate  proceedings.   Even  then  they  have  continued  the  correspondence  and  persuaded  the  Court Receiver to file reports before this Court, does  not  mean  that  the  Court  is  obliged  to  take  cognizance of the same.

To  my  mind  these  are  thoroughly  misconceived  proceedings and the remedy of the Plaintiffs/Decree  Holders  lies  elsewhere.   They cannot  insist  on  the  Court  passing  orders  only  because  of  continued  correspondence  and  meetings  with  the  Court  

6

Page 7

Receiver.  The Court has not authorized him nor has  he sought permission of the Court authorising him in  any  manner  to  continue  in  possession  of  the  suit  property.  If parties and equally the Court Receiver  do not deem it fit to approach this Court for all these  years and seek its intervention or interference, then,  all the more they cannot in the exercise that is now  carried out,  insist  on directions  to be given to the  Court Receiver.  Equally, the Court Receiver cannot  pray  for  any  direction.   If  the  Court  Receiver  continues to be in possession and wants to handover  possession to the parties claiming under the Decree,  then he is at liberty to move the Executing Court.  If  the  plaintiffs/Decree  Holders  desire  any  directions  being given to the Court Receiver, then it is for them  to  seek  appropriate  reliefs  and  directions  in  the  pending  execution  proceedings.   It  is  open  to  the  Court Receiver or parties to do so.  This Court after  the disposal  of  the Appeal  from Order has nothing  before  it  which could  be said to be pending.   The  First  Appeal  is  disposed  of  long  time  back.   The  Reports are filed in proceedings which are no longer  pending,  but  are  disposed  of  finally.   Neither  the  parties  nor  the  Court  Receiver  sought  any  further  directions from the Court.”

11. In paragraph 49 of the order the High Court noted the  

following:-

“Therefore, the record of that case was perused by  the learned judge in its entirety and he found that  the order was passed discharging the Court receiver  on 26.11.1992 and at the same time continuing him  for certain period to enable parties to file the Appeal  from the  said  order.   The  Appeals  were  filed,  but  same were dismissed by a Division Bench and the  Special  Leave  Petition  which  was  filed  before  the  Supreme  Court  also  came  to  be  dismissed  on  27.07.1993.   The  issue  was  whether  the  Court  Receiver became functus officio right from the date  

7

Page 8

when  the  order  was  passed  on  26.11.1992  discharging the Court receiver or whether the Court  Receiver continued to be in charge of the property on  account of pendency of his reports before the Court  and for the other reasons pointed out by the counsel  for the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 therein.”

12. Normally,  when  a  Receiver  is  appointed  on  an  

interlocutory  application  without  any  limit  of  time,  it  is  

necessary to provide for the continuance of his appointment  

in the final judgment.  In Halsbury Laws of England, 3 rd Edn.,  

Vol. 32 (Lord Simond) at page 386 says :-

“When  a  receiver  is  appointed  for  a  limited  time,  as  in  the  case  of  interim  orders,  his  office  determines  on  the  expiration  of  that  time  without  any further order of the court, and if the appointment  is ‘until judgment or further order’ it is brought to an  end by the judgment in the action.   The judgment  may provide for the continuance of the receiver, but  this is regarded as a new appointment.  If a further  order  of  the  court,  though  silent  as  to  the  receivership,  is  inconsistent  with  a  continuance  of  the receiver, it may operate as a discharge.”

When  a  receiver  has  been  appointed  on  an  interlocutory application without any limit of time, it  is not necessary to provide for the continuance of his  appointment in the final  judgment.   The silence of  the judgment does not operate as a discharge of the  receiver or determination of his powers.  So also the  appointment  of  a  receiver  by  the  judgment  in  an  administration action need not be continued by the  order, no further consideration.”

8

Page 9

13. In  Law  of  Receiver,  4th Edn.  by  James  L.  High,  the  

following observation appears at page 985:-

“the functions  of  a  receiver  usually  terminate with  the  termination  of  the  litigation  in  which  he  was  appointed.   And  when  the  bill  upon  which  the  appointment was made is afterwards dismissed upon  demurrer,  the  duties  of  the  receiver  cease  as  between the parties to the action….. And although as  between  the  parties  to  the  litigation  his  functions  have terminated with the determination of the suit,  he is still amenable to the court as its officer until he  has complied with its directions as to the disposal the  funds which he has received during the course of his  receivership….But  an  order  of  discharge  does  not  necessarily  follow,  in  all  cases,  because  of  the  determination of the suit, and the court may, upon  sufficient cause shown, either discharge or continue  the  receiver,  according  to  the  exigencies  of  the  case.”

14. In our view, when a Receiver is appointed pending suit  

or appeal, the prime objective is to preserve the property by  

taking possession or otherwise and to keep an account of  

rent and profits that may be realized by the Receiver and to  

submit  it  before  the  court  till  the  lis  is  finally  decided.  

Ordinarily the function of receivers who are appointed comes  

to an end with the final decision of the case.  However, even  

after the final decision, the Court has the discretion to take  

9

Page 10

further  assistance of  the  Receiver  as  and when the  need  

arises.  In the instant case, admittedly, the appellants have  

already  put  the  decree  in  execution  for  recovery  of  

possession.   We  are,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  the  

Executing  Court  while  executing  the  decree  may  take  

assistance of the Receiver or by appointing new Receiver or  

Commissioner  for  effecting  delivery  of  possession  in  

accordance with law and not more than that.

15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not  

find any error  in  the impugned order  passed by the High  

Court.  The Civil Appeals are, therefore, of no merit and are  

dismissed.

…………………………….J. [ M.Y. Eqbal ]  

…………………………….J [Kurian Joseph]

New Delhi

10

Page 11

February 27, 2015

11