Ramesam, J.

1. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent that no second appeal lies. The appellants vakil refers us to the decision of myself and Devadoss, J., in Vishnu Umbadri v. Tazakat Manayul [1928] M.W.N. 390, where we held that a second appeal lies and Order 40, Rule 1, Civil P.C. has nothing to do with an application for execution. Mr. Kutti Krishna Menon for the respondent brought to our notice the decision in Srinivasa Prosad Singh v. Kesho Prasad Singh [1911] 14 C.L.J. 489, where it was remarked that Section 51 and Order 21, Rule 11 must be read with Order 40, Rule 1. This is no doubt an obiter dictum, but it is cited without any disapproval by Woodroffe on Receivers (Edn. 3, p. 161). Above all, my brother pointed out in the course of argument, that whereas Rules 12 to 57, Order 21, Civil P.C. contain modes of carrying out the processes of execution, in Order 21, Rule 11 (j) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) there is no rule dealing with the mode of appointing a receiver which is the only process in Clause (iv). The obvious inference is that it was intended to be dealt with by Order 40, Rule 1. The other rules in Order 40 must obviously apply.

2. There is no inconvenienc