JUDGEMENT : NEWASKAR, J. Plaintiff Mishrilal sued defendant No.1 Abdul Gani and defendant No.2 Mohammad Hasan for recovery of Rs.6435/- on the allegation that defendant No.1 had borrowed Rs.2000/- on 31-3-1951, Rs.2000/- on 2-11-1951 and Rs.2000/- on 27-1-1952 for business and by a document dated 31-3-1951 defendant No.1 pledged his hotel with the plaintiff and by a subsequent deed dated 2-11-1951 he confirmed and continued that transaction of pledge and further agreed to work the hotel on behalf of the plaintiff as his servant on a monthly remuneration of Rs.100/-. 2. It is further alleged that defendant No.1 though he had agreed to repay the amount of Rs.6000/- by 27-4-52 failed to do so. On the other hand he transferred by sale the hotel including all the furniture and goodwill to defendant No.2 just 3 or 4 days before 27-1-1953. 3. Defendant No.1 in his written statement admitted that the hotel in question was sold by conditional sale to defendant No.2 and that he was told about the fact of its pledge with the plaintiff. 4. Defendant No.2 on the other hand contended that he was a bona fide transferee for consideration in good faith and under a registered deed and was protected. 5. In the course of this suit an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff for appointment of a receiver to run the hotel. 6. This application was opposed by defendant No.2 who contended that there was no just ground made out to deprive him of the possession of the hotel. 7. Both the plaintiff and defendant No.2 filed affidavit in support of their respective contentions and the trial Court after hearing arguments came to the conclusion that it was just and convenient in this case to appoint a receiver who shall take possession of and run the hotel and shall keep accounts of income and expenditure of the same. He therefore appointed Abdul Hazif Khan pleader as the receiver. 8. Aggrieved by this order defendant No.2 has preferred this appeal. 9. It was urged on behalf of defendant No.2 that in the first place no causes are made out such as waste or malversation and there was no good reason to deprive defendant No.2 who is in possession and management of the same. 10. 8. Aggrieved by this order defendant No.2 has preferred this appeal. 9. It was urged on behalf of defendant No.2 that in the first place no causes are made out such as waste or malversation and there was no good reason to deprive defendant No.2 who is in possession and management of the same. 10. Secondly it was urged that appointment of a pleader as a receiver for running a business like that of a hotel was not conducive to the protection of interest either of the plaintiff or defendant. 11. Thirdly it was urged that no enquiry was instituted by the lower Court into the plaintiff's allegation for appointment of a receiver. 12. It appears that the Court was anxious to protect and preserve the property of the hotel and its income in case they ultimately were liable to be used in discharge of plaintiff's debt. He prima facie thought that plaintiff has a good case. He therefore passed an order appointing a receiver. 13. However in such cases it is clear that a party in possession should not ordinarily be deprived of the possession of a property particularly when it consisted of a business like a running hotel except where there are allegations of purposeful waste, malversation or fraudulent disposal. There are other provisions such as an order under O.39, R.2, C.P.C., or one under O.39, R.7, C.P.C., by directing list of property of the hotel together with rights of periodic inspection and some sort of injunction. 14. In my opinion the order appointing a receiver is not appropriate and should be set aside. 15. In case plaintiff is so advised he might resort to any of the courses open to him as suggested above. 16. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. 17. SAMVATSAR, J.: I agree. Order set aside.