P L D 1960 Dacca 414 (PLP)

AKBAR, J.‑This appeal by the defendants is directed against the appointment of a Receiver.

2. The facts are as follows : At the instance of the plaintiffs, a proceeding under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code was started against the defendants in respect of the suit land and the Sub‑divisional Officer, Bhola, attached the said land and appointed pro forma defendant No. 89 as a Receiver. The Magis trate, who tried the case, found possession with the defendants and ordered that the defendants would retain possession of the said land till evicted therefrom in due course of law. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed Title Suit No. 84 of 1956 in the 2nd Court of Sub ordinate Judge, Barisal, for recovery of possession of the said land upon declaration of their title thereto. They also claimed mesne profits. On an application by the plaintiffs, the learned Judge on 15‑3‑56 appointed Mvi. Amir Hussain Pandit, Vice President, Union Board, Bara, Receiver of the suit lands subject to his furnishing a security for Rs. 5,

000. On 10‑4‑56, some of the defendants filed a petition for cancellation of the appointment of the Receiver. On 30‑4‑56, the learned Judge dismissed the said petition. Hence they filed this appeal against the order, dated 30‑4‑56.

3. The learned Advocate for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. He has argued that no appeal lies against an order rejecting an objection to the appointment of a Receiver. In our opinion, this order dismissing the appellants' objection to the appointment of a Receiver clearly comes within Order XL, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and, as such, the order is appealable : see Rawland Hudson v. Jhon Pierpoint Morgan and others (13 C W N 654), Agabeg v. Mst. Sundari (48 I C 133) and Pandit Ramswarup v. Raghunandan (78 I C 1031). Hence we decide this preliminary point against the respondents.

4. Now the learned Advocate for the appellants is willing to furnish a security for Rs. 5,000 and to maintain the account of the produce of the land. The learned Advocate for the respondents has been candid enough to say that, in these circumstances, it will be difficult for him to insist on the retention of the Receiver. We, therefore, direct that on the appellants furnishing a security for Rs. 5,000 within a fortnight from the receipt of the record by the Trial Court, the appeal will be allowed and the order appointing Maulvi Amir Hussain Pandit as Receiver will stand vacated. In default, the appeal will stand dismissed with costs. In the event of the security being furnished, the defendants would be required to submit periodical account of the produce of the suit land. KHAN, J.‑I agree. K.B. A. Order accordingly.