HARJIT SINGH vs BIRENDRA PAL SINGH
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
M.A. No.452 of 2026
----
Harjit Singh, son of late Nehal Singh, aged about 67 years,
resident of B-501, Shahdeo Tower, Pee Pee Compound, PO and
PS Hindpiri, District Ranchi 834001…. .... Appellant
-- Versus --
Birendra Pal Singh, son of late Nehal Singh, resident of Flat
No.504B, Bansal Plaza Apartment, Station Road, PO and PS
Chutia, District Ranchi 834001 ….. .... Respondent
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
For the Respondent :- Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
----
2 /27.08.2026 Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel
assisted by Ms. Shivani Jaluka, the learned vice counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.
2. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent submits that the counter affidavit has
already been served upon the learned counsel for the appellant,
1 M.A. No.452 of 2026
2026:JHHC:26071
however, the same has not been filed in the Registry as the matter
was on Board.
3. In view of his such submission, the said counter affidavit
is taken on record.
4. This application has been preferred by the appellant
under Order XLIII Rule 1(s) read with Section 104 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved with the order dated
22.05.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division XV),
Ranchi, in O.S. No.780 of 2024 whereby he has been pleased to
allow the application filed by the respondent under Order XL Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appointment of receiver.
5. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondent
/plaintiff has filed the O.S. No.780 of 2024 for partition of the
property situated at Mouza Siram, Thana No.210, PS Chutia, District
Ranchi, Khata No.50, Plot No.882 and 883 admeasuring an area of 6
kathas along with the multi-storied commercial building/ business
standing thereon. He next submits that the appellant/defendant
appeared in the said suit and filed written statement as well as the
counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6(A) of the C.P.C by way of
Annexure -2 and Annexure -3 respectively.
6. He next submits that in the aforesaid background,
respondent /plaintiff has filed application under Order XL Rule 1 CPC
for appointment of receiver of the suit property and the business
2 M.A. No.452 of 2026
2026:JHHC:26071
running thereon for management, protection and preservation of the
entire hotel business and collection of the profits and keeping the
accounts thereof. The said application is annexed as Annexure-4 in
the memo of appeal. He next submits that the suit land was
purchased by the appellant, however, the respondent/plaintiff was
only name lender and the entire consideration amount was also paid
by the appellant. He next submits that the appellant merely allowed
the name of the respondent/plaintiff in both the sale deeds. He
submits that the appellant in the year 2007-08 has decided to
develop the said land and since the respondent was merely a name
lender and allowed the appellant to develop the land at his own cost
and to his exclusive right. He further submits that there was
understanding between the appellant and the respondent that the
respondent has no right in the suit property and the entire
consideration amount was paid by the appellant and the appellant
has developed the multi-storied B+G+4 Commercial building on the
said land at his own cost and started a proprietorship business in
the name of M/s Hotel Swarn of which the appellant is the sole
proprietor. Mr. Sinha, the learned Senior counsel further submits that
the appellant is running the said business and with a wrong
intention the respondent/plaintiff trying to assert the right over the
said business and the suit was instituted by the plaintiff/
respondent. He next submits that the registration certificate issued
under the GST Act, 2017 has been issued in the name of M/s Hotel
3 M.A. No.452 of 2026
2026:JHHC:26071
Swarn and the appellant is proprietor thereof. He also submits that
the Municipal Trade Licence issued by the Ranchi Municipal
Corporation is also issued in the name of Appellant as well as the
Registration Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department
as contained in Annexure-6 of memo of appeal.
7. Mr. Sinha, the learned Senior counsel submits that in the
aforesaid background after hearing the parties the learned court by
the impugned order dated 22.05.2006 has allowed the application
filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XL Rule 1 C.P.C. for
appointment of receiver erroneously. By way of placing the Order
XL Rule 1 Mr. Sinha the learned Senior counsel submits that a
receiver can be appointed in a suit only when the Plaintiff proves
that he stands a chance to succeed in the case. He submits that the
next principle is to prove some damage, loss or emergency in order
to get a person appointed as a receiver. He submits that in light of
the said provision, the receiver is not required to be appointed if it
deprives the Defendant of de-facto possession of the property. In
this background, he submits that the learned court has not
appreciated this aspect and has passed the order of appointment of
receiver and has issued directions to make a report which is not in
accordance with law. On these grounds, he submits that the
impugned order may kindly be set-set aside.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent draws the
4 M.A. No.452 of 2026
2026:JHHC:26071
attention of the Court to the plaint and submits that in the plaint
itself in paragraph no.4, 5 and 6, it has been stated that both the
parties used to reside jointly and do small hotel business in the said
property along with the family members and later on it was mutually
decided to get both the aforesaid six kathas of land to jointly
develop into a multi-storied commercial building for the purpose of
running hotel business. He next submits that the loan aspect has
also been dealt in paragraph no.5 of the plaint itself and in
paragraph no.6 it has been dealt that as to how many rooms for the
guests are there in Hotel Swarn and in paragraph no.10 of the said
plaint, further it has been stated that joint hotel business is the only
source of livelihood of the plaintiff and his family members and only
a meager amount was paid since last couple of years to the plaintiff.
He next submits that in the written statement filed by the
defendant, particularly in paragraph no.11, statement is made about
taking of loan from Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited for the
development of the suit property bearing loan account no.9492617
and about the payment of the E.M.I to the tune of Rs.60,376/-. Mr.
Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
sole respondent further submits that in the reply filed by the
appellant to the petition of the plaintiff under Order XL Rule 1 C.P.C
in paragraph no.7 it has been stated that the defendant took a loan
from the said finance company and the loan amount is also same.
He then draws the attention of the Court to page 38 of the counter
5 M.A. No.452 of 2026
2026:JHHC:26071
affidavit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff and submits that the loan
number is similar in the loan application. By way of referring page
47, he submits that the signature of the co-borrower is there, that
is, plaintiff, namely Birendra Pal Singh and in the schedule of the
loan agreement at page 51, the plaintiff is also co-borrower along
with the son. He submits that page no.58 is the sanction letter of
the loan and sanction letter is also in the name of Harjit Singh and
Mr. Birendra Pal Singh who are the appellant/defendant and the
plaintiff/respondent and at pages 59 and 60, the name of the co-
applicants are mentioned. He submits that all these documents
clearly suggest that the loan is taken by the defendant and the
plaintiff both and the learned court considering all these aspects has
passed the order only to maintain the management of the suit
property and that too, by the appellant and only a report was
sought from the receiver. He submits that even the appellant-herein
has not been restrained to do the business and first part of the
direction is clearly on that point. He submits that once these facts
are proved, prima facie, before the learned court, the learned court
has rightly passed the order merely appointing the receiver and
sought a report and ensure proper maintenance of income and
expenditure of the business, preservation of GST records and other
business records.
9. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels
for the parties and after going through the materials on record, the
6 M.A. No.452 of 2026
2026:JHHC:26071
court finds it is an admitted position that the appellant and the
respondent are own brother.
10. From the two sale deeds, it further transpires that the
same is purchased by both the brothers, however, the argument has
been made that the entire money has been paid by the appellant
and that is the subject matter of trial. From the documents on
record as well as the plaint, written statement and the reply, it also
transpires that the loan was sanctioned in the name of both the
brothers. The plaintiff herein has not concealed the fact that the
loan was sanctioned in favour of both the brothers and that is
proved in light of the documents contained at pages 38 and 51 of
the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff whereat the
loan number is similar to the loan application and in the schedule of
the loan agreement at page 51, the plaintiff is also co-borrower
along with his son.
11. In view of above documents, prima facie, it is proved
that the loan was taken by both the brothers and even the son of
the plaintiff is also there in the loan document and the learned trial
court by the impugned order has directed in the following manner
which are as under:
“(i) O/C to issue letter to the learned Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi for nomination/appointment of a suitable Receivet!
Commissioner from the approved panel for supervision of the
suit property and the hotel business being run in the name and
style of "M/s Hotel Swan'.
(ii) The defendant shall continue day-to-day operation of the
7 M.A. No.452 of 2026
2026:JHHC:26071
hotel business, however, the defendant shall maintain proper
accounts of income and expenditure of the business from today
onwards and shall preserve all GST records, bank statements,
account books and other business related documents.
(iii) The defendant is further restrained from alienating,
encumbering or creating any third party interest over the suit
property without prior leave of this Court. Both parties are also
directed not to make any structural alteration or change the
nature and character of the suit property during pendency of
the suit.
(iv) "The Receiver/Advocate Commissioner, upon nomination by
the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, shall visit and
Inspect the suit property as well as the hotel business being run
in the name and style of 'M's Hotel Swarm and shall submit a
detailed report before this Court specifically regarding:-
(a) the present nature and physical condition of the suit
property,
(b) the person(s) found in actual possession, occupation and
management of the hotel business;
(c) the existing mode of operation and management of the
establishment;
(d) availability and maintenance of account books, GST records,
licences, bank transaction details and other business related
documents;
(e) approximate nature of income generating activities being
carried out from the suit premises;
(f) whether any structural alteration, transfer, encumbrance or
change in nature of the property appears to have been made;
and
(g) any other fact which the Receiver/Advocate commissioner
may consider necessary for effective adjudication of the present
dispute.
(v)The receiver/ Advocate commissioner shall be at liberty to
inspect the relevant business records and both the parties shall
extend full cooperation during such inspection.”
12. In view of above direction of the learned court, it
8 M.A. No.452 of 2026
2026:JHHC:26071
transpires that the learned court has not restrained the appellant
herein to run the business and maintain the said premises. The
learned court by way of aforesaid direction, has only sought a report
about the business, the physical condition, mode of operation,
maintenance of account books, maintenance of GST records,
License, Bank transactions, approximate nature of income
generating activities and not to create a third-party interest.
13. In light of the above discussions, the Court finds that
prima-facie the argument of Mr. Sinha, the learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant about the condition of
appointing the receiver is fulfilled as noted supra in the argument of
Mr. Sinha, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned
order, and accordingly, this appeal fails, and as such, this appeal
being M.A. No.452 of 2026, is, hereby, dismissed.
14. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 27.08.2026
SI/ A.F.R.
9 M.A. No.452 of 2026