JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(s), Civil Procedure Code against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer dated February 21, 1989 by which he has appointed Shri Om Prakash Mangal, Advocate for the protection and preservation of the properties of the defendant- appellant No. 2 M/s Primado Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Makrana. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. In the year 1986, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for the recovery of certain amount against the defendant-respondent No. 2 M/s Primado Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Makrana. The appellant and the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were impleaded in the suit as defendants, being Directors of the Company. They could not personally be served with the summons. Their summons were published in newspapers. In the year 1989, they moved applications for setting aside the exparte orders passed against them. Meanwhile, an application under Order 40 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code was moved for the appointment of a Receiver. In their reply, Praveen Bhai D. Patel (defendant No. 2) and Jetindra Bhai N. Patel (defendant No. 3) submitted that they have ceased to be the Directors of the defendant company M/s Primado Marbles Pvt. Ltd. and in their place M.S. Choudhary and R.S. Choudhary had been appointed as Directors. The other defendants pressed for first deciding their applications for setting aside the exparte orders passed against them. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant- appellant that the learned Trial Court should not have passed the impugned order before deciding the said application for setting aside the ex parte order passed against the defendant-appellant. He also contended that the date fixed in the case for hearing arguments on the said application moved under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code was preponed and no information was given to the defendant-appellant about the preponed date. He further contended that no notice either of the suit or of the application moved under Order 40 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code was given to the new Directors M.S. Choudhary and R.S. Choudhary. He further contended that no notice either of the suit or of the application moved under Order 40 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code was given to the new Directors M.S. Choudhary and R.S. Choudhary. He also contended that appointment of Receiver is a very harsh remedy, it is not just and equitable to appoint a Receiver under the facts and circumstances of the case, The properties are being properly preserved by the present Directors, there was no urgency for appointing a Receiver and if the Receiver is allowed to take possession of the factory of the defendant-respondent No. 2, it would not be able to do business in future. He lastly contended that the defendant-appellant has returned to India and he should have been appointed as a Receiver instead of Shri Om Parkash Mangal, Advocate. 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent Bank that a huge amount is outstanding against the defendant, the defendant-appellant is residing in United States of America, he has executed a power of attorney in favour of Indravardan R. Bhatt, the factory is closed, no business is being run, the machines and goods are deteriorating, if steps are not taken for their protection and preservation, their market value will further go down, the land of the factory is on lease and it would become very difficult for the plaintiff-Bank to realise its amounts. He further contended that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified to appoint a Receiver. 5. It is not in dispute that the factory is closed, no business is being carried on by the defendant-respondent No. 2 M/s Primado Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Makrana and a huge amount is outstanding against the defendants. Admittedly, case proceeded ex parte against the defendant-appellant and other defendant- respondents and the orders to proceed ex parte against them were not set aside before the impugned order was passed. There is no provision in Order 40, Civil Procedure Code similar to Order 39 Rule 3, that a Receiver can be appointed only after notice to the opposite party. It is not open to the ex parte defendants to challenge this order as the orders passed against them for proceedings ex parte in the suit were not set aside. 6. There is no provision in Order 40, Civil Procedure Code similar to Order 39 Rule 3, that a Receiver can be appointed only after notice to the opposite party. It is not open to the ex parte defendants to challenge this order as the orders passed against them for proceedings ex parte in the suit were not set aside. 6. There is great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bank that if the properties of the defendant-Company are not protected and preserved their market value will further go down and it would become more difficult for the plaintiff-Bank to recover its huge amount. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and equitable to give an opportunity to the defendant-appellant to act as a Receiver in place of Shri Om Prakash Mangal, Advocate for six months. During this period of six months, the defendant-appellant, as a Director, will either start the business or will take necessary steps for the sale of the properties of the defendant-Company after wide and repeated publicity through local, State and National newspapers and other modes for fetching maximum price, to sell them with the prior consent of the plaintiff-Bank and order of the Trial Court and to deposit the sale proceed with the plaintiff-Bank to the extent of the amount payable to it. If the defendant-appellant fails to do so within the said period of six months the possession of the entire properties of the defendant-Company will be taken by the said Receiver Shri Om Prakash Mangal, Advocate for their preservation and protection. 8. The suit is pending since the year 1986. It needs expeditious disposal. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. The Trial Court will decide the suit in accordance with law within 6 months. The provisions of Order 17 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code will be kept in view as and when a party seeks adjournment. The parties will take repeated steps in emergent course atleast a week before the date fixed or recording the statements of their witnesses, if not personally served earlier. If any witness of a party fails to attend the Court on the date fixed for recording his statement, coercive steps may be taken under Order 16, Rule 10 and 12 , Civil Procedure Code to enforce his attendance. 10. If any witness of a party fails to attend the Court on the date fixed for recording his statement, coercive steps may be taken under Order 16, Rule 10 and 12 , Civil Procedure Code to enforce his attendance. 10. No order as to costs.Appeal disposed of. *******