Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a High Court order in a contempt petition that set aside a Trial Court's order appointing a Seven Member Committee as Receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple, Mathura. The dispute originated from a civil suit filed in 1999 regarding the management of the temple, which had been pending for over 25 years. The Trial Court had initially appointed an advocate as receiver, which was set aside by the High Court in 2021. Subsequently, the Trial Court appointed a Seven Member Committee including three lawyers. Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the High Court's earlier order. The High Court allowed the contempt petition, set aside the Trial Court's order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the appointment of a receiver with religious leaning. The appellant, a member of the Committee, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in contempt proceedings by setting aside the Trial Court's order and remanding the matter. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, observing that the contempt jurisdiction is limited to punishing disobedience and cannot be used to review or set aside orders. The Court also noted the widespread issue of advocates being appointed as receivers in temple matters in Mathura, leading to prolonged litigation, and directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appointment of Receiver - Order XL Rule 1 CPC - The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order appointing a Seven Member Committee as Receiver, holding that it frustrates the provision of Order XL Rule 1 CPC, which contemplates appointment of a single receiver. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, noting that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in contempt proceedings. (Paras 1-10) B) Contempt of Court - Jurisdiction - Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The High Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, cannot set aside the Trial Court's order and remand the matter; contempt proceedings are limited to punishing for disobedience of court orders. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction. (Paras 4-10) C) Temple Management - Appointment of Receiver - Order XL Rule 1 CPC - The Supreme Court observed that the appointment of advocates as receivers in temple matters has become a norm in Mathura, leading to prolonged litigation. The Court directed the Trial Court to consider appointing a receiver with religious leaning towards the deity, if necessary. (Paras 4-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court's order appointing a Seven Member Committee as Receiver in a temple management dispute, and whether the appointment of advocates as receivers is permissible under Order XL Rule 1 CPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 27.08.2024, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in contempt proceedings by setting aside the Trial Court's order and remanding the matter.
Law Points
- Order XL Rule 1 CPC
- Appointment of Receiver
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 12
- Societies Registration Act
- 1860
- Section 25
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India
