# Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 700
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6855 of 2025
- **Bench:** Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ishwar-chanda-sharma-v-devendra-kumar-sharma-ors-38707
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

The issues raised in the present case relates to: (i) the eligibility of
a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura; (ii) temples
facing severe administrative issues of crowd management.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XL, R.1 - Appointment of
Receiver -Temples - Mathura Region - Temples in grip of legal
battles - Appointment of advocates as receivers - A stop-gap
measure - The instant suit pending for 25 years - Temple trust
running through receivers - No effort to conclude the civil
proceedings - The High Court vide its order dated 27.08.2024
held that all these temples should be freed from the clutches
of practising advocates of Mathura Court and Courts should
make every endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a Receiver
who is connected with the management of a temple and has
some religious leaning towards the deity - Correctness:
Held: It is an established fact that the historical temples are old
structures; they require proper upkeep and other logistic support,
and added to the fact is that in a large number of temples, Receivers
have been appointed for decades now which was originally intended
to be a stop-gap temporary measure - It is unfortunate that while
appointing Receivers, the concerned Courts are not keeping in
mind that Mathura and Vrindavan, the two most sacred places
for Vaishnav Sampradayas and, therefore, persons from Vaishnav
Sampradayas should be appointed as Receivers - This will give
true meaning to the High Court's directions pertaining to persons
who are having adequate administrative experience, historical,
religious, social background and not Advocates to be appointed as
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2015
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Receivers - The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura is directed
to comply with the Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024, and appoint
a Receiver having relevant adequate administrative experience,
historical, religious and social background preferably belonging to
the Vaishnav Sampradaya. [Paras 23, 24]
Public Interest Litigation - Temple Administration -
Administrative issues - Maladministration - Intervenor/
Respondent no. 4 apprised that other temples in the belt,
including the Shri Banke Bihari Temple, have been facing
severe administrative issues of crowd management and it is
being administered by a civil judge:
Held: This Court is in sesin of the cause qua the administration
and safety of temples in the Braj region, it is in public interest
to decide the issue raised by Respondent no. 4/State of Uttar
Pradesh expeditiously in this Court itself - Respondent no. 4
has placed on record the proposed scheme for development for
the Temple - Upon a perusal of the same and the consequent
assessments, it has been ascertained that 5 acres of land around
the temple is to be acquired and developed by constructing parking
lots, accommodation for the devotees, toilets, security check posts
and other amenities - As observed by the High Court vide order
dated 08.11.2023, the acquisition of land around the temple and
the consequent development project is crucial to ensure the safety
of the pilgrims - The State of Uttar Pradesh has undertaken to
incur costs of more than Rs.500 Crores to develop the corridor -
However, they propose to utilise the Temple funds for purchasing
the land in question; which was denied by the High Court vide order
dated 08.11.2023 - This Court permits the State of Uttar Pradesh
to implement the Scheme in its entirety - The Banke Bihari Ji
Trust is having fixed deposits in the name of the Deity/Temple -
In the considered opinion of this Court, the State Government is
permitted to utilize the amount lying in the fixed deposit to acquire
the land proposed - However, the land acquired for the purposes
of development of the temple and corridor shall be in the name
of the Deity/Trust - The order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the
High Court of Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation deserves to
be modified to the aforesaid exte

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 96,436. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2014 : 2025 INSC 700
Ishwar Chanda Sharma
v.
Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 6855 of 2025)
15 May 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The issues raised in the present case relates to: (i) the eligibility of
a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura; (ii) temples
facing severe administrative issues of crowd management.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XL, R.1 - Appointment of
Receiver -Temples - Mathura Region - Temples in grip of legal
battles - Appointment of advocates as receivers - A stop-gap
measure - The instant suit pending for 25 years - Temple trust
running through receivers - No effort to conclude the civil
proceedings - The High Court vide its order dated 27.08.2024
held that all these temples should be freed from the clutches
of practising advocates of Mathura Court and Courts should
make every endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a Receiver
who is connected with the management of a temple and has
some religious leaning towards the deity - Correctness:
Held: It is an established fact that the historical temples are old
structures; they require proper upkeep and other logistic support,
and added to the fact is that in a large number of temples, Receivers
have been appointed for decades now which was originally intended
to be a stop-gap temporary measure - It is unfortunate that while
appointing Receivers, the concerned Courts are not keeping in
mind that Mathura and Vrindavan, the two most sacred places
for Vaishnav Sampradayas and, therefore, persons from Vaishnav
Sampradayas should be appointed as Receivers - This will give
true meaning to the High Court's directions pertaining to persons
who are having adequate administrative experience, historical,
religious, social background and not Advocates to be appointed as
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2015
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Receivers - The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura is directed
to comply with the Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024, and appoint
a Receiver having relevant adequate administrative experience,
historical, religious and social background preferably belonging to
the Vaishnav Sampradaya. [Paras 23, 24]
Public Interest Litigation - Temple Administration -
Administrative issues - Maladministration - Intervenor/
Respondent no. 4 apprised that other temples in the belt,
including the Shri Banke Bihari Temple, have been facing
severe administrative issues of crowd management and it is
being administered by a civil judge:
Held: This Court is in sesin of the cause qua the administration
and safety of temples in the Braj region, it is in public interest
to decide the issue raised by Respondent no. 4/State of Uttar
Pradesh expeditiously in this Court itself - Respondent no. 4
has placed on record the proposed scheme for development for
the Temple - Upon a perusal of the same and the consequent
assessments, it has been ascertained that 5 acres of land around
the temple is to be acquired and developed by constructing parking
lots, accommodation for the devotees, toilets, security check posts
and other amenities - As observed by the High Court vide order
dated 08.11.2023, the acquisition of land around the temple and
the consequent development project is crucial to ensure the safety
of the pilgrims - The State of Uttar Pradesh has undertaken to
incur costs of more than Rs.500 Crores to develop the corridor -
However, they propose to utilise the Temple funds for purchasing
the land in question; which was denied by the High Court vide order
dated 08.11.2023 - This Court permits the State of Uttar Pradesh
to implement the Scheme in its entirety - The Banke Bihari Ji
Trust is having fixed deposits in the name of the Deity/Temple -
In the considered opinion of this Court, the State Government is
permitted to utilize the amount lying in the fixed deposit to acquire
the land proposed - However, the land acquired for the purposes
of development of the temple and corridor shall be in the name
of the Deity/Trust - The order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the
High Court of Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation deserves to
be modified to the aforesaid extent and it is modified accordingly.
[Paras 19 and 20]
2016
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & Managing Director, Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Limited & Ors. v. M. George Ravishekaran & Ors.
[2014] 4 SCR 27 : (2014) 3 SCC 373; Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of
India [2019] 16 SCR 811 : (2018) 7 SCC 785; Sri Adi Visheshwara
of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. [1997] 2 SCR 1086 : (1997) 4 SCC 606; Rajeev
Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. [2021] 15 SCR 283 :
(2022) 11 SCC 1; DR Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors. [2014] 1 SCR 308 : (2014) 5 SCC 75 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Societies
Registration Act.
List of Keywords
Appointment of Receiver; Temples; Mathura Region; Temples
in grip of legal battles; Appointment of advocates as receivers;
A stop-gap measure; Persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas;
Administrative experience, historical, religious, social background;
Public Interest Litigation; Temple Administration; Administrative
issues; Maladministration; Crowd management; Development of
corridor; Acquisition of land from temple funds.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6855
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CNTA No. 4429 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Kartikey, Abhikalp Pratap Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Vibha Makija, Navin Pahwa, Sr. Advs., Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Kumar
Mihir, K.B. Upadhyay, Pushkar Anand, A. Radhakrishnan, Shivansh
Bharatkumar Pandya, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Sankalp Goswami,
Shivansh B. Pandya.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2017
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
The appeal before us has been preferred by the Appellant against
the final judgement and order dated 27.08.2024 in Contempt
Application (C) No. 4429 of 2023 (hereinafter "Impugned Order")
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter "High
Court"), whereby the High Court allowed the petition preferred by
Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, and set aside order dated
28.03.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura/
Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter "Trial Court"), and remanded the
matter back for fresh consideration.
3.
During the course of the hearing, this Court has allowed I.A. No.
15019/2025, being an application for intervention filed by the State
of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4; and I.A. No. 16856/2025, being
an application for intervention filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma/
Respondent No. 5.
4.
Factual Background
4.1 The Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti, Bara Bazar, Govardhan, Mathura,
is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act,
and was constituted to manage the affairs of Sri Giriraj Temple,
Govardhan, Mathura on 18.11.1957.
4.2 The committee elections held in the year 1999 put a hiatus to
the peaceful functioning of the administration of the temple,
as it resulted in a dispute regarding the validity of two alleged
elections held on 24.04.1999 and 30.04.1999. Consequently,
Shri Govind Prasad Purohit (hereinafter "Plaintiff") filed
Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 (hereinafter "Civil Suit") seeking
a permanent injunction against the Defendant/Respondent No.
5/Dilip Kumar Sharma from causing any hinderance in all types
of management and operations of the Giriraj Temple. Both the
Plaintiff and the Defendant/Respondent No. 5 also filed two
separate election petitions pursuant to the same, which came
2018
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of
the Societies Registration Act.
4.3 Vide order dated 11.02.2000, the Prescribed Authority held the
election dated 24.04.1999 to be valid by which Respondent No.
5 was declared to be the Manager.
4.4 Aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred a Writ Petition before the
High Court, being WP (C) No. 9601 of 2000, which came to
be dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2006 on the ground of
being infructuous.
4.5 Consequently, the Plaintiff passed away in 2006, and his
son Jitendra Prasad Purohit (hereinafter "Plaintiff") moved
an application seeking to be impleaded in the Civil Suit, and
setting up his claim to be appointed as Manager of Committee
of Management.
4.6 Vide order dated 30.07.2021, the Trial Court in the Civil Suit
appointed Shri Nand Kishore Upadhyay, Advocate as Receiver
of the temple, who was also the advocate representing the
Plaintiff in the Civil Suit.
4.7 Respondent No. 5 preferred a Writ Petition, being No. 4468 of
2021, against the order dated 30.07.2021 and the appointment
of an advocate as the receiver. Vide order dated 23.11.2021,
the High Court set aside the order dated 30.07.2021 with the
consent of the parties, and remanded the matter back to the
Trial Court for fresh consideration.
4.8 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Trial Court decided the
application for appointment of Receiver and appointed a
Seven Member Committee (hereinafter "the Committee"),
which included 3 lawyers. While deciding the constitution
of the Committee, Respondent No. 1 herein had made an
application before the Trial Court expressing his desire to be
appointed. However, Respondent No. 1 did not find mention in
the Committee on account of him being in government service
and being unable to devote his time sufficiently to the temple
management. Pertinently, the Appellant herein was appointed
as a member of the said Committee.
4.9 Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 preferred
a Contempt Petition, being Contempt Application (Civil) No.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2019
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
4429/2023, for prosecuting and punishing the Ld. Civil Judge/
Respondent No. 3 for her wilful disobedience of the order dated
23.11.2021 passed by the High Court on the ground that instead
of appointing a single Receiver, a Seven Member Committee
of Receiver has been appointed.
4.10 Vide Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024, the High Court set
aside order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Trial Court as
it frustrates the provision of Order XL Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC"), and remitted the
matter back for consideration of the application afresh in the
light of directions of the High Court order dated 23.11.2021.
The High Court observed that in the present case, the Civil Suit
has been pending for over 25 years and only plaintiff evidence
has concluded to date. Further, the High Court observed that
there are eight temples which are all under the administration
of Receivers and most of them are managed by practicing
advocates of Mathura. The High Court directed the Trial Court
to make every endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a Receiver
who is connected with the management of a temple and has
some religious leaning towards the deity.
5.
Aggrieved, the Appellant who was not a party before the High Court,
has preferred the present SLP on the grounds of violation of Article
14 of the Constitution, secular nature of appointment, and eligibility
of advocates as receivers.
6.
During the course of the hearing, vide interim order dated 09.12.2024,
this Court observed as under:
"1. Permission to file SLP is granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who claims to be
one of the Committee Members appointed by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Mathura (Trial Court) vide the Order dated
28.03.2023 passed in O.S. No. 332/1999 for management
and operation i.e. Receiver/Manager of the Temple. The
said order has been set aside by the High Court vide the
important order dated 27.08.2024, with direction to remit
the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
3. The impugned order dated 27.08.2024, passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Contempt
2020
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Application (Civil) No. 4429 of 2023, highlights the glaring
state of affairs prevailing in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
particularly, in the District-Mathura with regard to the
administration of the Trusts in Temples, which are supposed
to be very important and sacred places for Hindus.
4. The glaring observations made by the High Court in its
impugned order, are reproduced as hereunder;
.........."1.Receivership in the temple town of
Mathura has become the new norm. Most of
the famous and ancient temples are in the grip
of legal battle, restraining the temple trust, its
Shebait and the Committee to manage its affairs
and are being run by persons appointed by the
Court as Receivers under Order XL of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as
'C.P.C.').
2. Out of the list of 197 temples as provided by
District Judge, Mathura on 23.05.2024, there
are civil litigations pending of these temples
situated at Vrindavan, Govardhan, Baldeo,
Gokul, Barsana, Maath etc. The litigation ranges
from the year 1923 till the year 2024. In these
famous temples of Vrindavan, Govardhan and
Barasana, practising advocates of Mathura
Court have been appointed Receivers. The
interest of Receiver lies in keeping the litigation
pending. No effort is made to conclude the
civil proceedings, as the entire control of
temple administration vest in the hands of
Receiver. Most of the litigation is in respect of
management of temples and appointment of
Receivers.
3. A practising lawyer cannot devote sufficient
time for the administration and management of a
temple, especially of Vrindavan and Govardhan,
which needs skill in the temple management
along with full devotion and dedication. It has
become a symbol of status in the city of Mathura.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2021
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
4. The present contempt application under
Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act has been
filed by a stranger for punishing the opposite
party on the ground that earlier Writ Court on
23.11.2021, while disposing of Matters under
Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021 had set aside
the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Mathura passed in Original Suit No. 332 of 1999
appointing an advocate as a Receiver who was
also the counsel of the plaintiff.
5. The court below was required to decide the
application for appointment of Receiver afresh
on merits. Pursuant to order of writ Court, the
Court below proceeded to decide the application
for appointment of Receiver on 28.03.2023,
and appointed a Seven Member Committee of
Receiver which included three lawyers.
6. The entire thrust of the applicant counsel
is that court below should not have appointed
a Committee of Receiver, but should have
considered the application moved by the
applicant for being appointed as a Receiver,
it should have appointed any one person
connected with temple as Receiver, and not a
Committee.
7. Learned counsel then contended that on
18.11.1957 Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti, Bara
Bazar, Govardhan was constituted to manage
the affairs of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan,
Mathura, which was registered under Societies
Registration Act, and the Committee continued
till 1998 without any dispute.
8. As dispute arose between office bearers of
the Committee, an election petition was filed
which was referred to Prescribed Authority
on 13.12.1999. The Prescribed Authority on
11.02.2000 held the election to be valid. Against
the said order, Writ-C No. 9601 of 2000 was
2022
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
filed. In the meantime, one Govind Prasad filed
Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 for declaring him
as Manager of the Committee of Management
in pursuance of the election dated 21.04.1999.
On 10.05.1999, an
interim injunction was granted. The Writ Petition
No. 9601 of 2000 which was filed challenging
the order of Prescribed Authority was dismissed
on 10.02.2006.
9. Unfortunately, Govind Prasad Purohit passed
away on 28.11.2006, and one Jitendra Prasad
Purohit moved an impleadment application
in the original suit setting up his claim to
be appointed as Manager of Committee of
Management. It was in the year 2021 that
one Nand Kishore Upadhyay, Advocate was
appointed as Receiver of the temple who was
the advocate of Ramakant Kaushik, who was
also impleaded in the Original Suit No. 332 of
1992 by removal of Jitendra Prasad Purohit.
The order of appointment of Nand Kishore
Upadhyay, Advocate dated 30.07.2021 was
challenged by way of Matters under Article
227 No. 4468 of 2021 which was disposed of
on 23.11.2021 requiring the application to be
considered afresh.
10. This Court on 21.05.2024 had required
the counsel appearing for Allahabad High
Court to seek information from the District and
Sessions Judge, Mathura as to pending civil
suits in respect of temples situated in DistrictMathura, and also furnish complete information
in regard to date of institution of suit, stage of
suit, appointment of Receiver in the suit along
with the date, and also information as to the
advocate appointed as Receiver in the said suits.
11. On 24.05.2024, Sri Chandan Sharma,
learned counsel appearing for Allahabad High
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2023
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Court placed before the Court the instructions
so received by him from District Judge, Mathura
along with list of 197 civil suits which are pending
in the Civil Court at Mathura in respect of old
temples with the entire details of temple name
and its location, date of institution of suit, stage
of suit, whether Receiver appointed or not, if
appointed date of appointment and name and
details of advocates appointed as Receiver.
12. Another instruction dated 27.05.2024 has
also been received from District Judge, Mathura
giving the entire details of the cases mentioned
from Serial No. 1 to 8 of list submitted earlier.
13. Sri Sharma raised a preliminary objection
as to the maintainability of the contempt
application on the ground that the applicant
is neither a party in the suit nor was under
the zone of consideration for appointment of
Receiver, thus, could not maintain the present
contempt application. He then contended that
earlier round of litigation was filed by one
Dileep Kumar Sharma who was a party to
Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 and impleadment
application of the applicant till date has not
been decided.
14. I have heard respective counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.
15. The concept of appointment of Receiver lies
under Order XL of C.P.C. Relevant provision of
Order XL Rule 1 reads as under:-
"1. Appointment of receivers.-(1) Where it
appears to the Court to be just and convenient,
the Court may by order-
(a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether
before or after decree;
(b) remove any person from the possession or
custody of the property;
2024
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(c) commit the same to the possession, custody
or management of the receiver; and
(d) confer upon the receiver all such powers,
as to bringing and defending suits and for
the realisation, management, protection,
preservation and improvement of the property,
the collection of the rents and profits thereof,
the application and
disposal of such rents and profits, and the
execution of documents as the owner himself
has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks
fit. (2) Nothing in this rule shall authorise the
Court to remove from the possession or custody
of property, any person whom any party to the
suit has not a present right so to remove.
16. From perusal of provision of Order XL Rule
1 C.P.C., it is clear that the object of appointing
a Receiver is to protect, preserve and manage
the property during the pendency of a suit. The
words "to be just and convenient" have been
substituted for the words "to be necessary for
the realization, preservation or better custody,
or management of any property, movable or
immovable, subject of a suit or attachment". The
effect of this amendment is that the Court may
now appoint a Receiver not only in a particular
case specified in the old section, but in every
case in which it appears to the Court to be just
and convenient to do so.
17. The power of the Court to appoint a Receiver
under this order is subject to the controlling
provision of Section 94 and is to be exercised
for preventing the ends of justice from being
defeated. Section 94 CPC reads as under;
"94. Supplemental Proceedings.-In order to
prevent the ends of justice from being defeated
the Court may, if it is so prescribed,-
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2025
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and
bring him before the Court to show cause why he
should not give security for his appearance, and
if he fails to comply with any order for security
commit him to the civil prison;
(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to
produce any property belonging to him and to
place the same at the disposal of the Court or
order the attachment of any property;
(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of
disobedience commit the person guilty thereof
to the civil prison and order that his property be
attached and sold;
(d) appoint a receiver of any property and
enforce the performance of his duties by
attaching and selling his property;
(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may
appear to the Court to be just and convenient."
18. The source of power of the Court to grant
interim relief is under Section 94. However,
exercise of that power can only be done if the
circumstances of the case fall under the rules.
Therefore, when a matter comes before the
Court, the Court has to examine the facts of
each case and ascertain whether the ingredients
of Section 94 read with rules, in an order, are
satisfied and accordingly grant an appropriate
relief.
19.The word 'may' gives discretion to the
Court where it is alleged that the suit property
is under threat and protection, preservation,
management and improvement of the property,
along with collection of rents and profits is
required, then the Court may exercise its power
during the pendency of litigation by appointing
any person as Receiver.
2026
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
20. In Satyanarayan Banerji & Another Vs.
Kalyani Prosad Singh Deo Bahadur & Others,
AIR 1945 CAL 387, the Court held that object
and purpose of appointment of a Receiver may
generally be stated to be the preservation of
subject matter of the litigation pending, a judicial
determination of the rights of the parties thereto.
The Receiver is appointed for the benefit of all
concerned, he is the representative of the Court
and of all parties interested in the litigation,
wherein he is appointed. The appointment
of a Receiver is an act of Court and made
in the interest of justice. He is an officer or
representative of the Court subject to its order.
His possession is the possession of the Court.
21. In T. Krishnaswamy Chetty (supra) Madras
High Court had laid five principles which can be
described as "panch sadachar" of our Courts
exercising equity jurisdiction in appointing
Receivers. Relevant paragraph no. 13 of the
judgment is extracted here as under;
"13. The five principles which can be described
as the 'panch sadachar' of our Courts exercising
equity jurisdiction in appointing receivers are
as follows:
(1) The appointment of a receiver pending
a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of
the Court. The discretion is not arbitrary or
absolute: it is a sound and judicial discretion,
taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, exercised for the purpose of permitting
the ends of justice, and protecting the rights
of all parties interested in the controversy and
the subject-matter and based upon the fact that
there is no other adequate remedy or means
of accomplishing the desired objects of the
judicial proceeding: - 'Mathusri v. Mathusri,' 19
Mad 120 (PC) (Z5); - 'Sivagnanathammal v.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2027
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Arunachallam Pillai', 21 Mad LJ 821 (Z6); -
'Habibullah v. Abtiakallah', AIR 1918 Cal 882
(Z7); - 'Tirath Singh v. Shromani Gurudvvara
Prabandhak Committee', AIR 1931 Lah 688
(Z8); - 'Ghanasham v. Moraba', 18 Bom 474
(Z9); - 'Jagat Tarini Dasi v. Nabagopal Chaki',
34 Cal 305 (Z10); - 'Sivaji Raja Sahib v.
Aiswariyanandaji', AIR 1915 Mad 926 (Z11); -
'Prasanno Moyi Devi v. Beni Madhab Rai', 5 All
556 (Z12); - 'Sidheswari Dabi v. Abhayeswari
Dabi', 15 Cal 818 (Z13); - 'Shromani Gurudwara
Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Dharam
Das', AIR 1925 Lah 349 (Z14); - 'Bhupendra
Nath v. Manohar Mukerjee', AIR 1924 Cal 456
(Z15).
(2) The Court should not appoint a receiver
except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie
he has very excellent chance of succeeding in
the S. suit. - 'Dhumi v. Nawab Sajjad Ali Khan',
AIR 1923 Lah 623 (Z16); - 'Firm of Raghubir
Singh Jaswant
v. Narinjan Singh', AIR 1923 Lah 48 (Z17); -
'Siaram Das v. Mohabir Das', 27 Cal 279 (Z18); -
'Muhammad Kasim v. Nagaraja Moopanar', AIR
1928 Mad 813 (Z19); - 'Banwarilal Chowdhury
v. Motilal', AIR 1922 Pat 493(Z20).
(3) Not only must the plaintiff show a case of
adverse and conflicting claims to property, but,
he must show some emergency or danger or
loss demanding immediate action and of his own
right he must be reasonably clear and free from
doubt. The element of danger is an important
consideration. A
Court will not act on possible danger only; the
danger must be great and imminent demanding
immediate relief. It has been truly said that a
Court will never appoint a receiver merely on the
ground that it will do no harm. - 'Manghanmal
2028
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Tarachand v. Mikanbai', AIR 1933 Sind 231
(Z21); - 'Bidurramji v. Keshoramji', AIR 1939
Oudh 61 (Z22); - 'Sheoambar Ban v. Mohan
Ban', AIR 941 Oudh 328 (Z23).
(4) An order appointing a receiver will not be
made where it has the effect of depriving a
defendant of a 'de facto' possession since that
might cause irreparable wrong. If the dispute
is as to title only, the Court very reluctantly
disturbs possession by receiver, but if the
property is exposed to danger and loss and
the person in possession has obtained it
through fraud or force the Court will interpose
by receiver for the security of the property.
It would be different where the property is
shown to be 'in medio', that is to say, in the
enjoyment of no one, as the Court can hardly
do wrong in taking possession: it will then be
the common interest of all the parties that the
Court should prevent a scramble as no one
seems to be in actual lawful enjoyment of the
property and no harm can be done to anyone
by taking it and preserving it for the benefit
of the legitimate who may prove successful.
Therefore, even if there is no allegation of
waste and mismanagement the fact that the
property is more or less 'in medio' is sufficient
to vest a Court with jurisdiction to appoint a
receiver. - 'Nilambar Das v. Mabal Behari', AIR
1927 Pat 220 (Z24); - 'Alkama Bibi v. Syed
Istak Hussain', AIR 1925 Cal 970 (Z25); -
'Mathuria Debya v. Shibdayal Singh', 14 Cal
WN 252 (Z26); - 'Bhubaneswar Prasad v.
Rajeshwar Prasad', AIR 1948 Pat 195 (Z27).
Otherwise a receiver should not be appointed
in supersession of a bone fide possessor of
property in controversy and bona fides have to
be presumed until the contrary is established
or can be indubitably inferred.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2029
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
(5) The Court, on the application of a receiver,
looks to the conduct of the party who makes the
application and will usually refuse to interfere
unless his conduct has been free from blame. He
must come to Court with clean hands and should
not have disentitled himself to the equitable relief
by laches, delay, acquiescence etc."
22. The discretion given to the Court has to
be exercised with great care and caution. It
cannot in a routine manner appoint Receiver and
continue the management of the temple/trust
through such appointments. Every endeavour
should be there to get the dispute decided at
the earliest without prolonging it and running
the entire show through the Receivers.
23. The present case is an example where the
original suit was filed in the year 1999 claiming
relief of permanent injunction restraining
defendants from interfering in management and
running of the temple. The suit is pending for last
25 years, and report of District Judge reveals that
only plaintiff evidence has taken place. No effort
has been made by court concerned to expedite
the matter and decide it. Only application for
appointment of Receiver has been considered
on number of occasions and the temple trust is
being run through Receivers. The entire dispute
hingesm around the appointment of Receiver.
Earlier this Court in the year 2021 had set aside
the order of court below appointing an advocate
as Receiver and remanded back the matter for
consideration afresh.
24. The officer against whom contempt has
been alleged has now proceeded to appoint a
Seven Member Committee of Receivers which
includes three advocates. The order dated
28.03.2023 frustrates the provision of Order
XL Rule 1 C.P.C.
2030
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
25. In the garb of provisions of Order XL Rule
1 C.P.C., the Courts cannot prolong litigation
and run a temple/trust or manage any suit
property through Receiver without making any
effort to decide the lis. 25 long years have
elapsed and only plaintiff evidence has taken
place. Successive litigations have come to
this Court only questioning the very legality of
appointment of Receiver. The suit is proceeding
at snail pace. There is no effort either on the
part of the court below or the Receiver who
has been appointed to get the suit decided.
Rule 1(d) of Order XL clearly provides that all
powers, such as, bringing and defending suits
and for realisation, management, protection,
preservation and improvement of the property,
collection of rents and profits thereto, the
application and disposal of such rents and
profits and the execution of documents are all
conferred upon the Receiver.
26. It appears that the Receiver appointed by the
Court made no effort to get the suit decided. His
only interest is to continue as a Receiver and
control the entire administration of the temple.
The instant contempt application at the behest
of Devendra Kumar Sharma clearly reveals that
he has only moved an impleadment application
in the suit of 1999 to be impleaded as a party
and has applied to be appointed as a Receiver
which has not been considered by court below.
27. The averment made in the contempt
application by the applicant and submission
of his counsel reveals his intention to become
a Receiver. It is not only the interest of the
applicant but also of other persons to continue
as a Receiver in the temples of District-Mathura
without there being any adjudication to the civil
litigation.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2031
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
28. The list of eight temples placed by District
Judge demonstrates that, Radha Vallabh
Mandir, Vrindavan; Dauji Maharaj Mandir,
Baldeo; Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir, Gokul;
Mukharbind, Goverdhan; Danghati, Goverdhan;
Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir
Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana are all under
the grip of Receivers and most of them are
managed by practising advocates of Mathura.
29. Now, time has come when all these temples
should be freed from the clutches of practising
advocates of Mathura Court and Courts should
make every endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a
Receiver who is connected with the management
of a temple and has some religious leaning
towards the deity. He should also be well versed
with the Vedas and Shastras. Advocates and
people from district administration should be
kept away from the management and control of
these ancient temples. Effort should be made for
disposing of the suit, involving temple disputes
at the earliest and matter should not be lingered
for decades.
30. From perusal of list of pending cases
provided by District Judge, Mathura, it appears
that oldest of the suit being Original Suit No. 94
of 1923 of Dauji Maharaj Mandir was decided by
a compromise decree on 15.10.1924. However,
on a regular misc. application filed before court
below, a Receiver has been appointed and the
matter is being continued and the temple is
being managed by a Receiver. The court below
should make every endeavour to decide the
misc. application which is pending therein and
not run the temple through a Receiver.
31. The present case which was filed on
10.05.1999 till date has not been decided despite
25 years having elapsed. The court below is
2032
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
requested to expedite the matter and proceed
to decide the same without wasting any time
in appointment of Receiver and continuing the
management through them. The order dated
28.03.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Mathura appointing a Seven Member
Committee is liable to be set aside as it is not
based on any sound principle of law. The court
below is expected to comply the order passed
by writ Court on 23.11.2021 in Matters under
Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021 and decide the
application for Receiver in consonance with
provisions of Order XL Rule 1 making every
effort keeping away the advocates from the
said responsibility.
32. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court requests the District
Judge, Mathura to take personal pain and inform
his officers about this order and also make
every endeavour to conclude the civil disputes
regarding temples and trusts of District-Mathura
as expeditiously as possible.
33. Prolonging the litigation is only creating
further disputes in the temples and leading to
indirect involvement of practising advocates and
district administration in the temples, which is
not in the interest of the people having faith in
Hindu religion."............
5. Having regard to the above observations, it appears that
the issues of Temple administration, and the appointment
of Receivers in the suits pertaining to the Temple
administration, have become most difficult conundrum
for the Courts and very lucrative court proceedings for
the Advocates in the State of Uttar Pradesh, especially
in the District Mathura.
6. It may be noted that the Courts, which are considered to
be the temples of justice, cannot be permitted to be used
or misused for the benefit of a group of people, who would
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2033
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
have vested interest in prolonging the litigations. Nobody
should be permitted to abuse or misuse the process of
law under the guise of prolonged litigations in the Court.
7. Having regard to the state of affairs narrated by the
High Court in its impugned order, it is directed that the
Principal District Judge, District Court at Mathura shall
submit a Report with regard to the following, through the
Registrar (Nazir) of the District Court, so as to reach to
this Court on or before 19.12.2024;
i. List of Temples in the District of Mathura in
respect of which the litigations are pending and
in which the Receivers appointed by the Courts.
ii. Since when such litigations are pending and
the status of such proceedings.
iii. The names and status of the persons,
particularly of the Advocates appointed by the
Courts as Receivers.
iv. The remuneration, if any, being paid to the
Receivers appointed in such proceedings.
8. Issue notice, returnable on 19.12.2024.
9. Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the
concerned Principal District Judge, District Court Mathura."
Accordingly, this Court directed that the Principal District Judge,
District Court at Mathura shall submit a Report with regard to (i) List
of Temples in the District of Mathura in respect of which the litigations
are pending and in which the Receivers appointed by the Courts;
(ii) since when such litigations are pending and the status of such
proceedings; (iii) the names and status of the persons, particularly
of the Advocates appointed by the Courts as Receivers, and (iv)
the remuneration, if any, being paid to the Receivers appointed in
such proceedings.
7.
Further, several interim applications came to be filed by interested
parties for permission to intervene and to be heard in the present
case. Vide order dated 29.01.2025, this Court permitted the State of
Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 to intervene, upon an application
highlighting the following issues:
2034
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"3. The applicant submits that the applicant is concerned
with poor facilities at most of the Temple sites particularly
in the Braj region which include Vrindavan, Govardhan,
Bandeo, Barsana, Matth, etc. The applicant is also
concerned with the rising cases of untoward incidents
of stampedes, law and order, etc. at the Temple sites.
There is an emergent need to create better facilities for
the devotees which would involve creation of infrastructure
at the Temple sites besides also creating an effective and
transparent management of the Temples.
4. The applicant submits that the State of Uttar Pradesh
has already enacted The Uttar Pradesh Braj Planning and
Development Board Act, 2015 and has constituted Braj
Planning and Development Board (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Board')...
5. This Board is thus formed and constituted for the purpose
of preparing and implementing plans to be in conformity
with the Brij Culture and Architecture in the Braj region.
The Board is thus a body which is empowered to do all
that is needed to preserve the rich heritage culture of the
Braj region.
...
8. This Hon'ble Court has further noted that the District
Judge, Mathura has placed a further list of eight Temples
which explains that Radha Vallabh Mandir, Vrindavan; Dauji
Maharaj Mandir, Baldeo; Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir,
Gokul; Mukharbind, Goverdhan; Danghati, Goverdhan;
Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir Shree Ladli
Ji Maharaj, Barsana are all under the grip of Receivers
and most of them are managed by practising Advocates
of Mathura. The present Special Leave Petition deals with
the issue of Receiverships being appointed by the Civil
Courts who have been interested only in the delays of the
proceedings for their extraneous reasons. It is submitted
that it is in these circumstances that the role of State
Government becomes pivotal in ensuring early resolution
of the present problem.
...
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2035
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
11. The applicant submits that one of the holiest and sacred
Temples in the Braj region is Shree Banke Behari Temple
at Vrindavan. This is one of the most holiest, famous
and pious temples of Krishna which is stated to have
been constructed sometime in 1864. This Temple holds
immense spiritual significance and the Temple attracts
large crowd of devotees which most of the time leads to
untoward incidents and even deaths. There are serious
issues of crowd management besides provision for basic
amenities for the devotees in and around the Temple. This
162 year old temple is spread over on a limited area of
1200 sq.ft only. On an average, number of devotees who
visit Temple are about 40 to 50 thousands per day and
during the weekends and some holidays, the number go
beyond 1.5 Lakhs to 2.5 Lakhs per day. During festival and
auspicious days such as Janamashtmi, Raksha Bandhan,
Sharad Purnima, etc., the number of devotees cross figure
of 5 Lakh in number.
12. The applicant submits that even with respect to this
temple, a Civil Judge (JD)/ Munsif, Mathura is acting
as an administrator and is managing the affairs of the
Temple since the year 2016. The temple was the site of
an unfortunate stampede in the year 2022, resulting in the
death and injuries of devotees. A Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) No.