Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.
1. In this case, the District Judge has appointed a Receiver for a mill mortgaged to defendant by it we insolvents who are now represented by the Official Receiver, plaintiff. In the plaint the Official Receiver alleges that the mortgage was only for 5 years, and that he tendered what he considered due to the mortgagee according to the terms of the mortgage, but the tender was not accepted. It would appear that the terms of the mortgage are onerous and now the Official Receiver has obtained an order for a Receiver on the ground that it is for the benefit of the insolvent's estate. For appellant (defendant) it is urged that the possession of a mortgagee in possession should not be disturbed by the Appointment of a Receiver. This is, no doubt, ordinarily true and very good grounds must be shown to justify the Court in interfering with such possession; but in this case we think that such grounds do exist; accepting as we do the statements in the plaint an application for a Receiver is correct, for they are unrebutted. One of the insolvents has been managing the mill all along on behalf of the mortgagee in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and it appears that the Receiver is now in possession of the mill. The mortgagee has not, therefore, had physical possession, and defendant's right to possession will not be affected by the appointment of a Receiver who merely represents the party entitled to possession, nor does it appear that defendant will suffer any loss by the appointment of a Receiver.
2. In these circumstances we will not interfere with the discretion of the District Judge.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.