1. Petitioners are aggrieved as learned Munsiff has declined to appoint a Receiver for the suit property.

2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") has invested with the court a discretionary jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver when it appears to the court "to be just and convenient" to do so. As the provision reads the discretionary jurisdiction arises only when it is shown that it is "just and convenient" to appoint a Receiver. It is relevant to note how that expression came into the Code.

3. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 (for short, "the Code of 1882") dealt with the power of court to appoint a Receiver thus:

"Chapter XXXVI Appointment of Receivers.

503. Whenever it appears to the court to be necessary for the realisation, preservation or better custody or management of any property, movable or immovable, the subject of a suit, or under attachment, the court may by order –

(a) appoint a Receiver of such property (and, if need be),

(b) remove the person in whose possession or custody the property may be from the possession or custody thereof;

(c) commit the same to the custody or management of such Receiver; and

(d) ................."

(emphasis supplied)

The law in England regarding appointment of a Receiver is stated in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873 (for short, "the Judicature Act"), Sec. 25 (8) as under:

"A mandamus or an injunction may be granted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory order of the court in all cases in which it shall appear to the court to be just or convenient that such order should be made; and any such order may be made either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court shall think just;................."

(emphasis supplied)

In the Code (of 1908) the relevant provision is as under:

"Order XL Appointment of Receivers (1) where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order –

(a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree;

(b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property;

(c) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver;

(d) ................"

(emphasis supplied)

The notable change brought into the Code (of 1908) which continues to be so even after the amendment, from the Code of 1882 is that the court is invested with the discretionary jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver only when it appears to the court to be "just and convenient" to do so while in the Code of 1882 the court had the power to appoint a Receiver when it appeared to be necessary for the realisation, preservation or better custody or management of the property. The Supreme Court in Pyarelal v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1094) has stated that the appropriate meaning of the word "appears" is "seems". The expression "just and convenient" occurring in Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code and which was not there in the corresponding provision (Sec.503) of the Code of 1882 was adopted from the Judicature Act, 1873, Sec.25(8) which I have extracted above. In the Judicature Act, Sec.25(8) the expression used is "just or convenient". In the Code (of 1908) in Order 40 Rule 1, the expression used is "just and convenient". Jessel, M.R. in Hedley v. Bates [(1879-80) 13 Ch.Div. 498] and Lindley, CJ. in Holmes v. Millage [(1893) 1 QB 551] have read the expression "just or convenient" occurring in the Judicature Act, Sec.25(8) as "just and convenient".

4. What is meant by "just and convenient"? The word, "just" is derived from the Latin word "justus" which came from the Latin word, "jus" which means "a right, more technically a legal right". The word "just" is defined in Century Dictionary as "right in Law or ethics". In the Standard Dictionary that word is defined as meaning "conforming to the requirements of right or positive law".

The word "convenience" means "suitability of a thing". Fletcher Moulton, CJ. in Edwards & Co. v. Picard [(1909) 2 KB 903] has construed the expressio