1. This appeal against the order of a single judge of this court appointing a receiver in a suit pending appeal here, is before us for decision on the question whether the appeal lies at all.

2. Not all the arguments of Mr. Paikaday has satisfied us that it does. True, an order appointing a receiver falls within Order XL rule (1), and an appeal lies against such an order under S.104 (1) (i) read with Order XLIII R.1 (s), of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it is still necessary for Mr. Paikady to show that the appeal lies to a bench of this very court. For this he relies on S.21 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, V of 1125 which, so far as it is relevant, runs as follows:

"A Division Bench, consisting of two judges of the High Court, is empowered.

x x x x "(ii) (a) x x x

(b) to hear and decide all appeals preferred from such orders as are provided in S.104 of the Cede of Civil Procedure, 1908, of a single judge of the High Court passed in exercise of the original jurisdiction;

And he argues that every order passed by a court, not being an order reviewing an order made by an inferior tribunal, is an order in exercise of original jurisdiction. In other words, according