JUDGMENT : This is an application filed by the petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) for appointment of a Receiver for making inventory of and taking possession of the hypothecated assets under two agreements executed between the parties on 28th June, 2019. The application has been filed in a suit for a money decree and for sale of the hypothecated assets described in the Schedule to the plaint. 2. The respondent company owns a tea garden in Silchar, Assam. The facts culminating in the prayer for appointment of Receiver arises out of business loans advanced by the petitioner to the respondent amounting approximately to Rs.2.50 crores against hypothecation of assets of the respondent under a Loan Agreement and a Deed of Hypothecation. The loan facility was extended by the petitioner to the respondent with an agreed rate of interest of 12% which would be increased to 18% in the event of default on the part of the respondent in repayment of the loan. Under the first agreement, in the event of default, the lender (petitioner) was entitled to take possession of and recover and sell by public auction or private contract the goods which formed part of the assets hypothecated in favour of the petitioner. 3. The agreement also provided that the outstanding amount shall become payable on demand and the lender shall become entitled to the possession of the securities hypothecated and sell the same. Under the Deed of Hypothecation, in return of the credit facilities, the petitioner was given a first charge on the entire current assets of the company and on Trees, Tea Shrubs and Fresh plantation. The agreement defines hypothecated assets as the respondent’s entire stock of raw materials, consumer goods, and other “movables” including Book Debts, money receivable etc. Clause 3 also mentions whole of Trees, Tea shrubs and Fresh plantation in the respondent’s tea garden at Silchar, Assam. The second agreement further provides for the right to inspect, recover and sell the hypothecated assets in case of any breach or default by the Borrower. Schedule 1 to the deed of hypothecation provides particulars of properties which were hypothecated to the petitioner including Trees, Tea shrubs and Fresh plantation at the respondent’s tea garden at Assam. The second agreement further provides for the right to inspect, recover and sell the hypothecated assets in case of any breach or default by the Borrower. Schedule 1 to the deed of hypothecation provides particulars of properties which were hypothecated to the petitioner including Trees, Tea shrubs and Fresh plantation at the respondent’s tea garden at Assam. The relevant Form which has been made part of the application shows that the movable property has been charged by the respondent in return for the credit facility of Rs. 2.50 crores. 4. The ledger accounts for the relevant part further shows that credit facilities of Rs. 2.50 crores were given by the petitioner and received by the respondent. The fact of money being lent is further evident from several letters of demand issued by the petitioner to the respondent. 5. These facts would be evident from the materials on record placed by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent raises two objections, the first contention is that the present application is not maintainable since the suit is a suit for land which cannot be entertained by this court. The second objection is on the factual aspect, namely, that the respondent does not owe any outstanding sum of money to the petitioner and further that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in the application for interim relief. 7. The point of maintainability is being taken up first. A suit for land, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is a suit where the plaintiff claims title or delivery of possession of land or immovable property, where leave under Clause 12 is required if a part of such land or property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 8. According to the respondent, this Court would not have jurisdiction to try the suit since the plaintiff seeks possession of immovable property situated in Assam. To ascertain whether the suit falls in this category, the prayers in the plaint as well as the pleadings therein would have to be considered. 9. Prayer (b) of the plaint, which is material for the present discussion, is for enforcement by attachment and sale of the hypothecated assets described in Schedule 1 to the Hypothecation Agreement dated 28th June, 2019. 9. Prayer (b) of the plaint, which is material for the present discussion, is for enforcement by attachment and sale of the hypothecated assets described in Schedule 1 to the Hypothecation Agreement dated 28th June, 2019. The Schedule gives the particulars of the properties of the respondent which stand hypothecated to the petitioner under the said Agreement and includes the Borrower’s entire plant and machineries including tools and spares, stocks of raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods, consumable stores and spares and other “movables” lying stored in the Borrower’s factories or godowns as well as Trees, Tea Shrubs and Fresh plantation at the respondent’s tea garden. The Schedule mentioned in prayer (b) of the plaint, therefore, makes it clear that the plaintiff’s prayer for attachment and sale of the hypothecated assets are restricted to movables only. 10. Section 3 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines “immovable property” to exclude standing timber, growing crops or grass. Section 2(13) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines “movable property” as including growing crops. Section 2(7) of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 defines “goods” to mean every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass and attached to a part of land which are created to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale. All the provisions, read together, would mean that standing timber and growing crops would classify as movable property. 11. Further, section 3(n) of The Tea Act, 1953, defines “tea” to mean the plaint Camellia Sinensis and all varieties of the product known commercially as tea made from the Leaves of the plant Camellia Sinensis including green tea. Rules 24 and 25 of the Tea Rules, 1954 defines “crop” as the yield or production of manufactured tea produced in the usual manner for sale in the market. 12. The document which reflects the properties charged in favour of the petitioner further classifies the property as “movable property” and reiterates that the charge shall operate on the entire current assets including Trees, Tea shrubs and Fresh plantation of the respondent’s tea garden. 13. 12. The document which reflects the properties charged in favour of the petitioner further classifies the property as “movable property” and reiterates that the charge shall operate on the entire current assets including Trees, Tea shrubs and Fresh plantation of the respondent’s tea garden. 13. The trees hypothecated to the petitioner would fall under “Standing Timber” as the intention of parties, as evidenced by the two agreements, would be that the petitioner would compensate itself for the loss suffered by the respondent’s default by felling the trees of the respondent’s garden and selling the timber. The agreements make it clear that the subject matter does not concern a right which can be equated with a lease of the tea garden or a long time grant to cut the trees; refer AIR 1956 SC 532 where a 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Shantabai v. State of Bombay, held that trees, except standing timber, are immovable property and made a distinction in paragraph 32 of the Report wherein it was held that trees and shrubs which are sold apart from the land, for being cut and removed as wood, would be classified as movable property except in a case where the transfer includes the right to fell the trees for a term of years so that the transferee derives a benefit from further growth, in which case the transfer would be one of immovable property. 14. The above discussion leads the Court to the inescapable conclusion that the present suit is not a suit for land as the prayers in the plaint relate only to movable property and the claim in the suit is not for delivery of possession of land or immovable property. 15. The decisions shown on behalf of the respondent including AIR 1975 Calcutta 92, (2015) 8 SCC 219 deal with transfer of immovable property; of trees in the former and land in the latter. AIR 1945 CAL 37 and (2014) 16 SCC 722 relate to registration of charge in relation to immovable property and are hence not relevant for this discussion. It may also be stated that the plaintiff obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, at the time of presentation of the plaint and the defendant has not applied for revocation of such leave till date. It may also be stated that the plaintiff obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, at the time of presentation of the plaint and the defendant has not applied for revocation of such leave till date. AIR 1945 CAL 37, may be referred to in that classification of a property as movable/ immovable is a question of fact which can only be determined at trial. 16. The next question is whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment of Receiver for inventory and sale of the goods hypothecated. Several facts would show that the plaintiff, prima facie, has established a case for passing orders as prayed for. The two agreements executed between the parties clearly indicate that the loan facility was extended by the petitioner to the respondent against hypothecation of the respondent’s assets in respect of which the petitioner was given the right to recover, seize and sell on the default of the respondent in repaying the loan on the terms agreed by the parties. The charge of movable property created by the respondent in favour of the petitioner has not been cancelled till date or recorded as having been satisfied. There are four letters of demand from 22nd June, 2020 to 7th December, 2020 from the petitioner to the respondent including a letter of 10th September, 2020 recalling the loan. The respondent has not shown a single letter disputing the letters of demand or that the respondent has made part payment of the outstanding amount. The letters of demand in fact mention that cheques given by the respondent have been dishonoured. The ledger accounts are also prima facie evidence of loans being advanced by the petitioner to the respondent which can also be found from certain documents in the first compilation of papers filed by the respondent. The fact of the respondent’s cheques being dishonoured shows that the respondent is in involved circumstances which supports the petitioners prayer for interim relief. The respondent’s contention that the ledger accounts have manipulated entries is without corroboration and is a question which can only be determined at trial. 17. The point of suppression made on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable since the respondent has appeared in the proceedings and has contested the present application : refer paragraph 195 of (2004) 1 CHN 448 . 18. 17. The point of suppression made on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable since the respondent has appeared in the proceedings and has contested the present application : refer paragraph 195 of (2004) 1 CHN 448 . 18. The petitioner has restricted its prayers for appointment of Receiver only to green tea leaves; AIR 1960 Calcutta 123 may be referred to in this context for the proposition that a plaintiff can give up a prayer related to immovable property even at the final stage of a suit without any amendment being required for the same. Since the petitioner’s prayer involves tea leaves which are perishable commodities and are presumably being stored at the respondent’s garden and since the petitioner’s monetary claim has been established, this Court is of the view that a Receiver may be appointed to make an inventory of the green tea leaves which is being stored in the respondent’s warehouse/gardens in Silchar, Assam 1995(2) Mah LJ 81 and (1994) 1 Cal LT 337 are authorities for the proposition that a Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure can be appointed for perishable goods which have been hypothecated to a party. 19. Mr. Manish Ray of the Bar Library Club is appointed as the Receiver in the instant application. The Receiver shall sell the stock of green tea leaves at the prevailing market rate to the extent of Rs.1.80 crores and invest the said amount in an interest bearing fixed deposit. The inventory and sale of the green tea leaves shall be done in the presence of two officers of the respondent and one officer of the petitioner. Since the process of inventorising the green tea leaves at the respondent’s tea garden and selling the same up to an upper limit of Rs.1.80 crores will take considerable amount of time, the Receiver have the liberty of appointing an agent/assistant for carrying out the aforesaid directions. The Receiver will be paid an initial remuneration of Rs. 1 Lakh which shall be increased with leave of the Court and shall be borne by the petitioner. The petitioner will be at liberty to claim the remuneration in the suit in the event the petitioner succeeds. 20. The petitioner will also arrange for suitable remuneration for the Receiver’s assistant and make all necessary arrangements for travel and accommodation of the Receiver and his agent. The petitioner will be at liberty to claim the remuneration in the suit in the event the petitioner succeeds. 20. The petitioner will also arrange for suitable remuneration for the Receiver’s assistant and make all necessary arrangements for travel and accommodation of the Receiver and his agent. The respondent will ensure the safety of the Receiver and other persons visiting the garden in compliance with this order and shall not deal with the plucked green tree leaves until inventory is made of the same. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for stay of the operation of this order. Given the nature of the goods and the prima facie case established by the petitioner, such prayer is considered and refused. 22. Since this order has been made at the ad interim stage, let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within two weeks; reply within two weeks thereafter. 23. List this matter after four weeks.