JUDGMENT : Subhasis Dasgupta, J. The impugned order No. 35 dated 18.05.2018 passed by the learned Judge 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 42 of 2016 making an order of appointment of receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned advocate for the revisionists/petitioners submitted that appointment of receiver was made ex parte without giving him an opportunity of hearing. It was the contention of the revisionists/petitioners that petitioners are the absolute owners of the suit property and for that purpose appointment of receiver, if at all needed, should have been made by the Court below upon giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioners, without which the order making appointment of receiver was illegal. Further contention of the revisionists was that no ratification was obtained from the legal heirs left by deceased plaintiff No.2, who were admittedly brought on record by way of substitution, and as such without lawful ratification having obtained by the constituted attorney, who instituted instant suit for on behalf of the plaintiffs, the instant prayer for appointment of receiver was not good in the sense of law. Adverting to such proposition, as mentioned hereinabove, the revisionist proposed to challenge the maintainability of the petition filed by the opposite parties praying for appointment of receiver, under Order 40, Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. 3. Learned advocate for the opposite parties repelling the contention raised by the petitioners/revisionists submitted that learned Court below committed no error in making appointment of receiver for the protection of suit property. The ratification, as proposed to be obtained by revisionists/petitioners, was no longer needed in the present case, as the plaintiff No.2 was very much alive, the date when the petition prayer for appointment of receiver was made on 28.6.16. 4. In connection with suit for declaration, partition, injunction and for accounts, the petitioners/revisionists submitted a prayer dated 28.6.16 for appointment of receiver for protection of the suit property, for collection of rent from the tenants in the suit premises, for liquidating dues of Municipal tax, and also for undertaking required repairing from preventing the suit premises from being further dilapidated. In connection with suit for declaration, partition, injunction and for accounts, the petitioners/revisionists submitted a prayer dated 28.6.16 for appointment of receiver for protection of the suit property, for collection of rent from the tenants in the suit premises, for liquidating dues of Municipal tax, and also for undertaking required repairing from preventing the suit premises from being further dilapidated. In connection with above suit, the opposite parties/plaintiffs claimed their right, title and interest to the extent of their 75% share in the suit property, which they claimed to have inherited from one Hassan Imam, the erstwhile owner of the suit property, mentioned in 'A' Scheduled to the plaint. According to opposite parties/plaintiffs, the petitioners/defendants own their 1/3 share in the suit property, which they inherited from Md. Kausar Hussain, one of the heirs left behind by erstwhile owner Hassan Imam. The petitioners/revisionists claimed their absolute right, title and interest in the suit property shown in 'A' Schedule, denying the extent of share, held by the opposite parties/plaintiffs in the suit property. 5. The contention raised in the petition, while seeking appointment of receiver, was that defendants/petitioners had been realising rent from the tenants describing them to be the true and real owners by exhibiting their muscle powers causing serious deprivation to opposite parties/plaintiffs to the extent of their share, held in the suit property. The defendants/petitioners were further alleged to have inducted new tenants receiving huge amount of 'selami' and misappropriating the same for their own benefits. The suit property is a five (5) storied building, which was damaged by reason of being old and wornout requiring repairing for which substantial fund was required. 6. Upon consideration of such facts, the Court below by passing impugned order proceeded to allow the prayer for appointment of receiver ex parte for the protection and preservation of the suit property. 7. Admittedly the petition seeking appointment of receiver was made on 28th June, 2016, which came to be disposed of on 18th May, 2018, i.e. 2 years after the filing of the petition for appointment of receiver. 8. In course of hearing, it was not at all disputed that the petition for appointment of receiver was filed directly to the Court without effecting any service of the same upon the defendants/petitioners. 8. In course of hearing, it was not at all disputed that the petition for appointment of receiver was filed directly to the Court without effecting any service of the same upon the defendants/petitioners. Undenying position is that despite being served with the copy of the application praying for appointment of receiver, the petitioners/defendants did not care to file even a written objection against the same, though the defendants/petitioners filed their written statement in the Court below denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs to the extent of their alleged claim of share over the suit property. The case of the petitioner in the Court below was purely rested on a claim of absolute title and ownership with respect to the 'A' Scheduled Property upon denial of right, title and interest of opposite parties/plaintiffs. 9. Nothing was surfaced at the time of hearing that the petition for appointment of receiver filed on 28.6.16 was disposed of by the Court below on a proponed date. 10. When the petition for appointment of receiver was served well in advance upon the petitioners by the opposite parties, it cannot be concluded with all certainty that there was deliberate attempt on the part of opposite parties to get it heard out ex parte, behind the back of petitioners/defendants. 11. From the order impugned it appears that on the date fixed for hearing there was no prayer for adjournment even made by the petitioner seeking accommodation for hearing on a subsequent date. It was not the position that the Court below proceeded to dispose of the petition for appointment of receiver upon rejecting the prayer for adjournment of petitioner. 12. The suit for declaration and partition was filed sometimes in 2016, and in connection with which the prayer for appointment of receiver was made on 28.6.16 when plaintiff No.2 was very much alive. The legal heirs left by plaintiff No.2 was substituted within time as provided under the Code. The name of the heirs left by plaintiff No.2, since deceased, was brought on record by doing necessary substitution. 13. Argument was advanced that as soon as the plaintiff No.2 suffered his death, the right to sue could not be construed to have survived so as to get an order pertaining to the appointment of receiver. The name of the heirs left by plaintiff No.2, since deceased, was brought on record by doing necessary substitution. 13. Argument was advanced that as soon as the plaintiff No.2 suffered his death, the right to sue could not be construed to have survived so as to get an order pertaining to the appointment of receiver. Thus, according to petitioner when the suit was filed by a constituted attorney, it was so done in terms of the law applicable to agency. In the absence of ratification being obtained from the legal heirs, left behind by plaintiff No.2, since deceased, by the constituted attorney, though his legal heirs were duly substituted within time, but same would not be sufficient for seeking an order relating to appointment of receiver of the suit property. According to revisionist the authority extended to constituted attorney, by plaintiff No.2 stood automatically terminated with his death. 14. The significant point to be kept in mind that the plaintiff No.2 suffered death in this case on 11.7.17. The legal heirs of plaintiff No.2 were duly substituted within the time provided thereunder. So the moment when the petition for appointment of receiver was filed by the constituted attorney, there was lawful authority to sue against others, as provided to constituted attorney, by plaintiff No.2 during his life time. The right to sue thus being subsisted, when the petition for appointment of receiver was filed, there could not be any prejudice to occur to legal heirs of plaintiff No.2, who were duly substituted in the case record within the time. 15. The impugned order is very clear and conspicuous that appointment of receiver was made keeping in mind the protection of the suit property involving realisation of rent from the tenants residing in the suit property, payment towards Municipal Taxes and undertaking required repairing to prevent the building from being further wornout and dilapidated. The Court may pass an order of appointment of receiver in a case where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient. The superior Court normally would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below, if the same is exercised reasonably, rationally and judiciously, without being acted by any whims and also not in a capricious manner. The superior Court normally would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below, if the same is exercised reasonably, rationally and judiciously, without being acted by any whims and also not in a capricious manner. The word just and convenient appearing in order 40 Rule 1 CPC has to be understood in a manner what is actually right and just for the protection of the property. There is nothing available to show that authority granted to learned Court below was improperly exercised taking into account some irrelevant consideration. The discretion exercised by the Court below, while making appointment of receiver appears to have rightly done. With the appointment of receiver there will be neither any gain, nor loss, be occasioned to either of the parties involved in this case. The right, title and interest of plaintiffs and defendant as well may be best adjudicated during the trial with the collection of evidence, to be adduced by either of the parties to this case, and pending adjudication such rights, there will be no harm to either of the parties, if the suit property is allowed to be kept under the receivership of a receiver in terms of the order passed by the Court below. 16. As has already discussed that the petitioners/revisionists within a period of two (2) years (approx) from the date of service of copy of petition proposing for appointment of receiver, the petitioners never found themselves convenient to submit their written objection and on the date scheduled for hearing, no adjournment petition was even filed, supportive of a fact that they were actually vigilant and conscious to contest the case in terms of the defence, they put in their written statement. In the given circumstances of the case, there cannot be any inference that appointment of receiver was though allowed ex parte, but it was an outcome of denial of opportunity of hearing. Rather it was a case, where available opportunity could not be effectively utilised by petitioners for their apathy and reluctant attitude. Since the order appointing receiver will hardly cause any prejudice to petitioners, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 17. The revisional application fails being without any merits. Rather it was a case, where available opportunity could not be effectively utilised by petitioners for their apathy and reluctant attitude. Since the order appointing receiver will hardly cause any prejudice to petitioners, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 17. The revisional application fails being without any merits. Liberty is however, given to petitioners to raise their defence in support of their right, title and interest over the suit property involved in this case at the time of trial upon furnishing documents of ownership and title being relied upon by them. 18. Learned Court below is directed to dispose of the pending suit as expeditiously as possible without granting necessary adjournments in this case, unless it is unavoidable. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all necessary formalities.