Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. Revision Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 1027/94 and is a registered firm. As per the impugned order, in the absence of any counter to the application filed by the decree holder seeking appointment of a Receiver, the Court directed appointment of Receiver and also gave direction to the Receiver to take possession of the firm's assets subject to filing of monthly accounts. 2. At the time of filing the revision itself maintainability of the revision was doubted and ultimately after hearing the petitioner, it was directed to be numbered provisionally on condition that the maintainability would be heard after notice to the respondents. 3. During hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision is maintainable, as the impugned order is not one passed under 0.40 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and as it has to be deemed as one passed under 0.21 R.49 of the CPC. It was further argued that in the case of decree against a firm there is no provision for appointment of a Receiver; that in such cases the remedy of the decree holder is only to proceed to sell the property of the partnership and that the appointment of Receiver is not one of the modes of execution allowed under 0.21 R.50 of the C.P.C. 4. I find absolutely no merit in any of these contentions of the judgment debtor. It is true that 0.21 R.49(2) of the C.P.C. specifically mentions of appointment of Receiver in certain cases and there is no such direction in 0. 21, R.50 of the C.P.C. But then the appointment of Receiver allowed under 0. 21, R.49(2) of the C.P.C„ is in cases where the decree is not against the firm as such; but obtained only against a partner. In such cases the provision allows appointment of Receiver for the share of such partner in the profits of the firm. 0. 21, R.49(1) of the CPC itself makes it clear that the provisions in 0.49 are intended to apply only to cases of decree other than those obtained against the firm. As far as decrees against the firm are concerned, it is certainly 0. 21, R.50 of the C.P.C. that applies though there is no specific mention therein with regard to appointment of Receiver. As far as decrees against the firm are concerned, it is certainly 0. 21, R.50 of the C.P.C. that applies though there is no specific mention therein with regard to appointment of Receiver. However, that does not mean that the power of the court to appoint Receivers cannot be applied to decrees against the firm. The reason is that 0.21, R.50(1) of the C.P.C. provides that execution can be granted against any property of the partnership. If the firm's property can be proceeded against for realising the amounts due to the decree holder, it can certainly be done through any of modes contemplated in the CPC. S.51(d) then steps in enabling the decree holder to seek appointment of a Receiver as a mode of execution. Decree holder has therefore to proceed to 0.40 of the C.P.C. According to this provision, where it appears to the court 10 be just and convenient the court may order appointment of Receiver of any property, whether before or after decree. Here, the property that is sought to be put under Receivership is the firm's property. Therefore, a joint reading of 0. 21, R.50 along with S.51(d) and 0.40 of the CPC makes it clear that there is no bar at all for the court to invoke powers under 0. 40, R.1 of the C.P.C. to appoint Receiver to proceed against the property of the firm. This is precisely what has been allowed by the court below. 5. Now about the maintainability of the revision. An order under O.40 R.1 of the C.P.C. is appealable under 0.43(1)(s) of the C.RC. It necessarily follows by application of S.115(2) that a revision would not be maintainable. In the above circumstances, viewed from any angle, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this revision. The revision is dismissed.