ORDER: Judgment-debtors in O.S.No.422 of 1993, on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore, are the revision petitioners. 2. Suit was one for recovery of money. Decree was passed against the petitioners herein, and for recovery of the decretal amount, decree-holders have filed Execution Petition. Except for small amount, the judgment-debtors have not paid the decree debt and, therefore, decree-holders filed an application for appointment of a receiver, in respect of a theatre owned and possessed by petitioners herein. Decree-holders wanted the daily collections from the theatre to be realised and deposited in Court towards the decree amount. 3. Petitioners herein opposed the same. According to them, it is not just and convenient to appoint a receiver in a money claim, and they are prepared to sell the property and settle the transaction. According to them, a receiver cannot be appointed in respect of a property, which is not the subject-matter of the suit. According to them, it will also affect their business. The daily collection is very poor, and it will not be sufficient even to meet the receiver’s expenses. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the receiver application. 4. By the impugned order, the lower Court appointed an advocate with a direction to realise the daily collection from Irudhaya Theatre, Coimbatore and deposit the same periodically once in 15 days till the decree amount is fully satisfied and to file his statement of accounts and report. 5. The same is challenged in this revision. 6. At the time when the revision came up for admission, I ordered notice of motion, and since there was a representation that the receiver had not taken charge,status quo was directed to be maintained. 7. First respondent/ plaintiff has also entered appearance. With consent of both parties, I heard the revision itself for final disposal. 8. Sec.51 read with O.40, Rule 1, C.P.C. empowers the Court to appoint a receiver on application by decree-holder for executing a decree. Even though it is said to be one of the modes of execution, it is settled law that a decree-holder cannot get a receiver appointed as of right, since the Court will have to consider the provisions of O.40, Rule 1, C.P.C. also in regard to such appointment. 9. Even though it is said to be one of the modes of execution, it is settled law that a decree-holder cannot get a receiver appointed as of right, since the Court will have to consider the provisions of O.40, Rule 1, C.P.C. also in regard to such appointment. 9. Commenting on Sec.51, C.P.C., in ‘Mulla- The Code of Civil Procedure’ (Abridged)-/13th Edition, 2000), the learned author P.M.Bakshi has said as follows (at page 261): “...The appointment of a receiver in execution is, therefore, not a matter of right, and a proper case must be made out to justify the exercise by the Court of its discretion to make the appointment. The discretion is regulated by the provisions of O.40, Rule 1 and Clause (a) of that rule has been altered to allow the Court to appoint a receiver after decree. The Court must be satisfied that the appointment of a receiver is likely to benefit both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor rather than a sale of the attached property, and”for this reason a receiver has been appointed to realise an attached decree, to realise a debt attached in execution of a decree, to collect the rents of an attached property; and to realise a decree for, maintenance charged upon the immoveable property. The Court can, on the application of the decree-holder of a decree passed on a simple mortgage, appoint a receiver for collecting the rents and profits from the hypotheca for the benefit of the decree-holder. Again, the Court must be satisfied that the decree amount is likely to be realised within a reasonable time from the attached properties so that the judgment-debtor may not be burdened with property while he is deprived of the enjoyment of it. A receiver can be continued even after final decree is passed. Legal impediment to execution need not be shown before a receiver is appointed“. [Italics supplied] 10. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Rajalakshmi v. Muthusami, (1958)2 M.L.J. 146 : A.I.R. 1958 Mad. A receiver can be continued even after final decree is passed. Legal impediment to execution need not be shown before a receiver is appointed“. [Italics supplied] 10. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Rajalakshmi v. Muthusami, (1958)2 M.L.J. 146 : A.I.R. 1958 Mad. 411, has held that even for realisation of money due under a simple money decree, a receiver could be appointed, but the Court will have to consider the provisions of Order 40 Rule 1, C.P.C. Relevant portion of the decision reads thus: ”We agree with Mr.Gopalaswami Aiyangar about the wide powers given to Courts under O.40, Rule 1, C.P.C., and also agree that in very extraordinary cases the Court will have jurisdiction to appoint a receiver even in a simple money suit, before decree, and not merely in execution, under Sec.51(2), C.P.C. Thus, if a man has leased out his valuable mango tope or extensive paddy fields to another for Rs.10,000 a year, and the crop is on the ground, but the lessee defaults and when sued for the rent, flees to some foreign country leaving the mango tope or paddy crops unattended and uncared for making a decree in the suit, when got against him for the lease amount, worthless, as he has no other property, we are of opinion that the lessor plaintiff would have a right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court for the appointment of a receiver for the mango tope or paddy crops so that the crops may not be destroyed and be left remediless as the lessee had no other property. Mr.T.K.Subramania Pillai, for the respondent, does not dispute this. The Court will, of course, even then, consider whether it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver. Mere convenience will not do. It must also be just. But such extraordinary jurisdiction will not show that a Court trying a money suit has ordinary jurisdiction to appoint a receiver while the suit is pending, and before a decree is got, especially when other remedies, like attachment before judgment, are open to the plaintiff and are in fact the normal remedies he is expected to pursue. It is something like the extraordinary original jurisdiction of this Court". It is something like the extraordinary original jurisdiction of this Court". The above decision was relied on by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the decision reported in Arun Agencies, Mattancherry v. Messrs.St.Antony’s Oil Mill, A.I.R. 1989 Ker. 312, wherein, (in paragraph 4) it has been held as follows: "One of the questions is whether the Court has got power under O.40, Rule 1, C.P.C. to appoint a receiver in a money suit where there is no suit property. This Court feels that the power granted under O.40, Rule 1, C.P.C. is wide enough to enable this Court in appropriate cases to appoint a receiver. After all the main endeavour of the Court is to render justice to the suitors. The procedure prescribed by the Civil P.C. is only for the purpose of enabling the Court to reach the ultimate end; doing justice to suitor in the cause they submit before Court. With this background if we understand the scope and content of O.40, Rule 1 we are of opinion that in circumstances where it is necessary to render just and meaningful relief the Court can appoint a receiver even in a money suit. ... ... ..." [Italics supplied] 11. On the basis of the above legal position, we have to consider whether the appointment of receiver could be justified in this case. It is admitted by both sides that the theatre is the only asset of the judgment-debtors which is now under a attachment by decree-holders. It is admitted by both sides that the value of the asset is more than Rs.1 1/2 crores, and, for the purpose of realising near two lakhs of rupees, it is impracticable to bring the entire property of the judgment-debtors for sale. Being a theatre complex, it may not also be feasible to sell a portion of it for satisfying the decree debt. If the receiver is appointed and the income from the theatre is appropriated towards the decree debt, that will save the property from being sold, and at the same time the decree-holders also will be benefitted. 12. Taking into consideration the interests of both parties, I feel that the appointment of receiver is just and convenient, and the discretion has been properly exercised by the Court below. 12. Taking into consideration the interests of both parties, I feel that the appointment of receiver is just and convenient, and the discretion has been properly exercised by the Court below. It is well-settled principle of law that in circumstances where it is necessary to render just and meaningful relief, the Court can appoint a receiver even in a money suit. 13. The other argument raised was that the income from the theatre will not be sufficient even for meeting the expenses of the receiver. 14. I do not think that such a submission could be made even before the receiver assumes charge. If a receiver is appointed and he takes charge, he will have to submit a report, and then only the feasibility of continuing the receiver could be considered. The mere allegation of the petitioners that the daily collections may not be sufficient even to meet the expenses of the receiver cannot be accepted on its face value. 15. In the result, the impugned order is confirmed by dismissing the civil revision petition. No costs. The receiver can get necessary direction from the lower Court how to appropriate the collections from the theatre in question. The lower Court can also give further direction as the case required. C.M.P.No.19326 of 1999 for stay is also dismissed.