Interim receiver custody pending appeal obviates execution of any possession warrant.

The petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 25 August 2026 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Deesa, below Exh. 37 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2023.

The dispute concerned possession and use of Shop No. 1, which was stated to be partitioned so as to separate Shop No. 2.

During the hearing, the petitioner agreed to close the existing partition of Shop No. 1, hand over the key to a receiver, and refrain from using the separated portion pending disposal of the appeal. The respondent agreed to this proposed interim arrangement.

The High Court therefore considered the consensual arrangement without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pending appeal.

1. Whether, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should modify the impugned order by directing an interim custodial arrangement concerning the disputed portion of Shop No. 1 pending disposal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2023.

2. Whether the appellate court should appoint a receiver to take custody of the key and preserve the disputed premises until final adjudication of the appeal.

3. Whether the executing court should be restrained from executing any possession warrant during the operation of the interim arrangement.

The Court applied its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to modify the impugned order and regulate the interim arrangement in the interests of justice.

It relied on the consensual arrangement reached by the parties and the principle that an interim order should preserve the subject matter of litigation without prejudicing the merits of the pending proceedings.

The Court also directed the appointment of a receiver by the appellate court to maintain custody of the key and secure the disputed premises pending final adjudication.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the judgment.

The Court noted that both parties, through counsel and under instructions, agreed that the partitioned portion of Shop No. 1 should remain closed and that the key should be held by a receiver until the appeal was decided.

Since the proposed arrangement preserved the disputed property, prevented unilateral use of the entire shop, and did not require adjudication of the parties’ substantive rights, the Court accepted it as an appropriate interim measure without commenting on the merits.

It consequently directed the petitioner to close the existing partition and hand over the key to a receiver appointed by the appellate court, with a panchnama to be prepared if necessary.

The arrangement was expressly made temporary, and neither party was permitted to claim equity from it after the appeal’s final disposal.

The petitioner was directed to close the existing partition in Shop No. 1 and hand over its key to a receiver appointed by the appellate court.

The receiver was directed, where necessary, to prepare a panchnama and deposit the key with the Registrar of the District Court until disposal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2023.

The appellate court was requested to decide the appeal preferably by 31 December 2026, subject to the parties’ cooperation.

Upon disposal of the appeal, the key was to be handed over to the successful party.

The executing court was not required to execute any possession warrant during the interim arrangement.

Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.