SAMBASIVA MUDALI Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE agree with the District Judge that the application of the 10 January 1902, was a step-in-aid of execution. It is contended that after the sale no receiver could be appointed. It is not disputed that after decree a receiver might have been appointed for the preservation of the property. WE see no reason why after sale and while that sale was pending confirmation, a receiver should not be appointed for the same purpose. A long time might elapse between the sale and its ultimate confirmation and the appointment of a receiver might be absolutely necessary in the interval for the preservation of the property. The object of applying for the appointment of a receiver was that the execution proceedings might not be infructuous, and we are clearly of opinion that such an application is a step-ii-aid of execution.

(2.) THE appeal is dismissed with costs.