BAIKUNT LAL PANDEY Vs. RAJENDRA LAL PRASAD PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1 (s) of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the order dated 11.10.2010 (passed under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC) and its consequential order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura in Misc. Case No. 142 of 1990 whereby the respondent No. 2, namely Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, has been appointed Receiver of the property that is subject matter of compromise decree in Original Suit No. 94 of 1923.

(2.) SRI C.L.Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by SRI Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, SRI Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and SRI B.D.Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by SRI Satish Mandhyan and SRI Gaurav Sharma, learned counsels for the respondent No. 2 have been heard at length. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit has been exchanged between the appellant and the respondent No. 2. With the consent of all the counsels this appeal is being decided finally at this stage itself.

(3.) ATEMPLE of Sri Dauji Maharaj is situate in Kasba Baldev, Pargana Mahavan, District Mathura. With the filing of Original Suit No. 94 of 1923 before the Sub- Judge, Mathura, District Agra a dispute was raised as to the right of management of the temple. A declaration and injunction of such right was claimed by the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed in terms of a compromise on 15.10.1924. The compromise was entered in the decree. A translated copy of the compromise is available on record. It has been stated that one Babu Bldev Bihari Lal was appointed the first Receiver/Supervisor after the suit was filed in 1923. The compromise had provided the manner and method of appointment/selection of the person who was to be the Receiver. In Clause 4 of the Compromise there were two eventualities contemplated and it was the Court that had to make the appointment/selection of a Receiver from time to time.