Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. — This is an appeal by one Rajalakshmi Ammal the plaintiff in O.S. No. 11 of 1957 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, against the judgment of our learned brother Ganapatia Pillai, J., in C.M.A. No. 116 of 1957, allowing that C.M.A. and setting aside the trial Court’s order appointing a Receiver, in respect of leased out properties, in a simple money suit brought by the appellant for recovery of the arrears of the lease amount, amounting to Rs. 5,000 and odd from her lessee, Muthuswami Gounder on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order appointing a Receiver of property when that property was not the subject-matter of the suit. The learned Judge did not go into the merits of the case as he held the legal position enunciated by him to be conclusive.

We have perused the records, and heard learned counsel on both sides. Mr. R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, for the appellant, urged that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that a Receiver could be appointed by a Court only regarding property forming the subject-matter of the suit, and that it had no jurisdiction whatever to pass an order appointing a Receiver regarding property which was not the subject-matter of the suit. He relied on the rulings in Nedungadi Bank, Ltd. v. Official Assignee, Madras1, Ethirajulu Chetti v. Rajagopalachariar2, and Paramasivam Pillai v. Ramaswami Chettiar3, approving the latter decision, and on the ruling in A. R. A. R. A. L. Chettiar Firm v. U.Sin4. The first three decisions relied on by him related to appointment of Receivers in respect of properties covered by simple mortgages when danger to and deterioration of the properties in question and the loss of the mortgage amount were apprehended. Those rulings will no doubt show that a Court has in suitable cases jurisdiction to appoint Receivers regarding properties not the subject-matter of the suit. But mortgage suits have been treated on a different footing from simple money suits. So, those decisions cannot help the appellant in this case which is a simple money suit. No doubt, the position is somewhat different regarding the Rangoon decision. There, paddy standing on land was directed to be harvested and an interim Receiver was appointed to take charge of such harvested paddy. The learned Judge who decided the case observed regarding Order 40, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and the wide powers conferred on Courts thereunder:

“The rule does not say that a Receiver can be appointed only of property which is the subject-matter of a pending suit. What it says is that if it is found just and convenient, a Court can appoint a Receiver of any property provided the plaintiff or the defendant has a right thereto. It would not, of course, and in fact cannot, apppoint a receiver to take charge of property which is in the possession of a third party, when that party claims to be in possession thereof in his own right. This order and the two preceding orders, namely, Order 38 and Order 39 have been designedly framed by the legislature in order to secure the plaintiff against any attempt on the part of the defendant to defeat the execution of any decree that may be passed against him”.

Relying on this passage, and the wide scope of Order 40, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar wanted to urge that in every money suit of any kindt the Court has jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver, though whether it will appoint a Receiver will depend on its own discretion and its opinion as to whether it is jus and convenient to do so. So, he urged that, even in this case, the appointment of a Receiver by the trial Court was justified, as it was convenient, and that the cancellation of that appointment by Ganapatia Pillai, J., without even discussing the merits, was not justified. We agree with Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar about the wide powers given to Courts under Order 40, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and also agree that in very extraordinary cases the Court will have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document