Statutory appeal bars Article 226 interference with civil court orders; receiver orders over secured assets require necessary parties and status quo.

Where a Civil Court order is appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure, resort to Article 226 writ jurisdiction is ordinarily inappropriate and the party should be relegated to the statutory appeal. The text also notes that a Receiver order affecting secured properties should not proceed without impleading the mortgagee bank, particularly where proceedings under the SARFAESI Act already exist. Material suppression and failure to hear a necessary party justified keeping the Receiver order in abeyance, directing fresh consideration, and preserving the status quo that existed before the impugned civil court order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court ought to have entertained a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order of a Civil Court when a statutory appellate remedy was available. (ii) Whether the order appointing a Court Receiver over the secured properties could be allowed to stand without impleading the mortgagee bank and without preserving the existing status quo.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court ought to have entertained a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order of a Civil Court when a statutory appellate remedy was available.

Analysis: The order of appointment of a Court Receiver passed by the Civil Court was appealable under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In such a situation, resort to writ jurisdiction was inappropriate. Judicial discipline and propriety required the High Court to relegate the party to the statutory remedy rather than entertain the petition challenging an order passed by a Civil Court in another State.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained, and the High Court's order was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the order appointing a Court Receiver over the secured properties could be allowed to stand without impleading the mortgagee bank and without preserving the existing status quo.

Analysis: The Civil Court had passed a drastic order appointing a Receiver without impleading the mortgagee bank, although orders had already been passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Court also noticed suppression of material facts and held that the Receiver order should not be acted upon pending a fresh decision after hearing the bank. Status quo as obtaining immediately before the impugned civil court order was directed to continue.

Conclusion: The Receiver order was kept in abeyance, fresh consideration was directed, and status quo was ordered to continue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of setting aside the High Court's interference, while the dispute over the Receiver's appointment was sent back for fresh consideration with interim protection of the properties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against a civil court order, a writ petition under Article 226 should ordinarily not be entertained, and interim orders affecting secured properties must be reconsidered after impleading necessary parties and preserving status quo.

---