Receiver appointment in writ proceedings is maintainable, but discretionary relief depends on facts justifying extraordinary intervention.

Rule 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 allows the Code of Civil Procedure to apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 where the Rules are silent, so an application for appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 CPC was maintainable in a writ petition. Section 48-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act also permits interim relief in the nature of injunction or receiver in appropriate proceedings. However, the pleadings did not disclose circumstances justifying the extraordinary remedy of a receiver; at most, they supported interim injunction relief. The requested receiver was therefore not warranted on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for appointment of a receiver was maintainable in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of Rule 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 and Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the facts justified appointment of a receiver under Section 48-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether an application for appointment of a receiver was maintainable in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of Rule 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 and Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The Explanation to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 excludes proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the ordinary application of the Code. However, Rule 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 specifically makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and Article 227 and writ appeals where no specific provision is made in the Rules. On that basis, Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked in a writ proceeding. Section 48-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 also empowers the Tribunal to make interim orders in the nature of temporary injunction or appointment of receiver in proceedings under Section 48-A.

Conclusion: The application for appointment of a receiver was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the facts justified appointment of a receiver under Section 48-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Analysis: Even though the remedy was legally available, the pleadings did not disclose a case warranting the extraordinary relief of a receiver. The circumstances disclosed at best a basis for seeking an interim injunction, not the appointment of a receiver. The discretion to appoint a receiver was therefore not attracted on the facts.

Conclusion: The facts did not justify appointment of a receiver.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed because the requested interim relief was legally maintainable but not warranted on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where writ proceedings rules make the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to writ proceedings, procedural reliefs such as appointment of a receiver may be sought, but such relief will be granted only when the facts justify the exercise of that discretionary power.

---