Maclean, C.J (Stevens, J., concurring):— In my opinion, a receiver can be appointed under sec. 503 of the Code, in a suit to enforce a mortgage. It is the class of suit in which, of all others, it is often most expedient and necessary to do so. I can see nothing in the section to exclude mortgage suits from its operation. The case of Womda Khanum v. Rajroop Koer is not a decision upon this section: it is a decision on sec. 243 of the old Code (Act X of 1859), the language of which is materially different from that of sec. 503 of the present Code. Whether in the present case a receiver ought to be appointed is a matter which must depend upon the evidence, which is not before us, and upon which we can express no opinion, and which has not been considered in the Court below. We can only remand the case with the intimation of our opinion that there is nothing in sec. 503 to prevent a receiver being appointed in a mortgage suit. If an order for sale absolute has been made, and the sale has been finally effected in the sense that it has not been challenged, and in effect the suit has been finally determined, and there is nothing more to be done in working out the decree, the Court would, probably, not deem it necessary to appoint a receiver but if the mortgagor is in possession and challenges the sale, or is doing all he can by frivolous proceedings to delay possession being given to the mortgagee or purchaser, different considerations would arise. Each case must depend upon its own circumstances.
The appeal will be allowed with costs, hearing fee, three gold mohurs.
This judgment will govern appeal from order No. 261 of 1901, which is accordingly allowed with costs, hearing fee, three gold mohurs.
Appeal allowed.
Comments