Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the appointment of a receiver for a jointly claimed hotel business, observing that the trial court had not restrained the appellant from running the business or maintaining the premises. The Court held that the order only sought a report regarding the business, including its physical condition, mode of operation, account books, GST records, licences, bank transactions and income-generating activities, and was intended to ensure preservation of the business records and prevent creation of third-party interests.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(s) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 22.05.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division XV), Ranchi, appointing a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 CPC in a partition suit.

The respondent had filed O.S. No. 780 of 2024 seeking partition of property situated at Mouza Siram, Ranchi, along with the multi-storied commercial building and business standing thereon. The appellant challenged the appointment of a receiver over the property and hotel business. The appellant claimed that he had purchased the land, developed the commercial building at his own cost and was running a proprietorship business in the name of M/s Hotel Swarn.

Senior Advocate Amar Kumar Sinha, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the respondent had filed an application under Order XL Rule 1 CPC seeking appointment of a receiver for management, protection and preservation of the hotel business, including collection of profits and maintenance of accounts. It was argued that a receiver could be appointed only when the plaintiff showed a chance of succeeding in the suit and established the existence of damage, loss or emergency. He submitted that a receiver should not be appointed where it would deprive the defendant of de facto possession of the property.

Counsel for the respondent submitted that both parties were brothers and had jointly purchased the property. It was argued that they had jointly developed the property into a multi-storied commercial building for running the hotel business and that the trial court had rightly appointed a receiver to ensure proper maintenance of income and expenditure records, GST records and other business documents.

The Court noted that it was an admitted position that the appellant and respondent were own brothers. It further noted from the sale deeds that the property was purchased by both brothers, though the appellant claimed that the entire consideration was paid by him, which was a matter to be decided during trial. The Court also noted that the loan was sanctioned in the name of both brothers and that the plaintiff was a co-borrower along with his son.

The Court observed that the trial court had not restrained the appellant from running the business or maintaining the premises. It held that the directions issued by the trial court were limited to seeking a report regarding the business, including its physical condition, mode of operation, maintenance of account books, GST records, licences, bank transactions and approximate nature of income-generating activities.

The Court further noted that the trial court had directed that no third-party interest be created.

In view of the above, the Court held that there was no illegality in the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Harjit Singh v. Birendra Pal Singh

Case Number: M.A. No. 452 of 2026

Appearance:

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate; Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags: