1. This is a first appeal from order on an application made by Jaitley and Co., against an advocate who was a receiver of the shop belonging to the appellant. The appellant alleges that the receiver caused damages to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000 during the period that the receiver was in charge of the shop by not discharging his duties properly and by disregarding the directions of the Court and by wilful default and gross negligence. The lower Court held that the receivership had terminated and the execution Court had no legal jurisdiction to call upon the receiver to answer such charges and that no application lay. If the applicant desired any remedy, he should file a regular suit. We consider that the lower Court was correct asunder Order 40, Rule 4, Civil P.C., the language used is 'the Court may direct, etc.' That shows that a judicial discretion is given to the Court to take action under that section or not against a receiver. In the present case, apart from the fact that the opposite party is no longer a receiver, the Court has exercised its discretion in not taking such action. For these reasons we dismiss this first appeal from order under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C.