A creditor has a right to get a receiver appointed on the properties of the debtor if the principal money has become payable or, in the case of an equitable charge, if his interest has been in arrear.

K. C. AGARWAL, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra, dated February 2, 1976, allowing an application filed by the plaintiff respondent for appointment of receiver over the properties mentioned in Schedules C and E of the plaint.

2. Briefly stated the facts are these : Suit No. 64 of 1972 was filed by the United Bank of India, a banking concern against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 14,72,473.42 P. along with future interest against the appellants and others (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). The said defendants were the partners of M/s Hindustan Metal Works which was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit. The defendants 2 to 4 opened an account in the name of defendant No. 1 with the Belanganj Branch, Agra which was of the nature known as the Current Account . The facilities offered by the said current account were not adequate for the trade purposes of the defendants 1 to 4. They, therefore, requested the Bank to give them further facilities in the nature of cash-credit/over draft with the limit and terms to be mutually agreed between the parties. The bank agreed to give these facilities to the defendants on terms mutually agreed between the bank and the defendants. Under the arrangement so arrived at, the amounts advanced were duly entered in accounts maintained by the bank. The defendants 1 to 4 had also executed a number of documents to serve as corroborative evidence or collateral securities. These documents were amongst other the Letters of hypothecation, hypothecating bills, movable goods, stock-in-trade, in process etc. The bank pressed the defendants for the payment of the amounts due on several occasions but the same had been put off by them on one pretext or the other. Consequently, the bank called upon the defendants through a notice to pay the amount due to it, but since the defendants failed and did not pay, therefore, the bank had to file a suit for recovery of Rs. 14,72,473.42 P. The bank claimed a number of reliefs in the plaint. One of the reliefs was to appoint. a receiver over the properties mentioned in Schedules A to E for realisation of the amount due to the bank.

3. The bank thereafter filed an application on 10th of May, 1973 for appointment of a receiver over the properties mentioned in Schedules C and E of the plaint. The case of the bank was that in order to secure the payment of the amounts which was advanced to the defendants 1 to 4, the said defendants hypothecated plants and machinery which were mentioned in Schedule C of the plaint and had executed agreement in this connection. This document has been described as Board 1 No. 37-A. The other was Board No. 35-A regarding the hypothecation of the movable goods mentioned in Clause E , One of the terms incorporated in the aforesaid bonds with which we are concerned in the present appeal is cl. (g). The same is quoted below : (sic).

" The allegations made in the application by the bank were that in the eye of law the defendants held possession of the properties on behalf of the plaintiff bank and as such they were not entitled either to change possession or encumber that possession in any manner whatsoever without the consent of the bank but as the defendants did not pay the amount and further after filing of the suit they tried to remove certain machinery which had already been hypothecated with the bank. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to have a receiver appointed over the properties of Schedules C and E . In this connection, the plaintiff further alleged that the defendants had also leased out the properties to M/s N. K.

Woollen and Silk Mills, Agra, hence that was also a ground for appointment of receiver. The application for appointment of receiver was accompanied by an affidavit of Shri P. C. Mazumdar who was the agent of the United Bank of India, Belanganj, Agra.

4. The application was contested by the defendant No. 2 wh