1. We are invited in this appeal, to set aside an order made by the Court below in a suit for partition. The Subordinate Judge was invited by the plaintiffs to appoint a Receiver, and upon the materials placed before him, he came to the conclusion that a Receiver ought to be appointed. On the 8th January last he recorded an order to this effect, which concluded with the following words: I think the whole of the property in suit will be better managed and the interest of all the parties will be better served if the property in suit be placed in the hands of a competent Receiver,' Against this order, the defendants preferred the appeal now before us on the 19th January. The appeal is manifestly incompetent. Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of 1908 provides that where it appears to the Court, to be just and convenient, the Court may by order appoint s, Receiver of any property whether before or after decree. Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (s), then provides that an appeal lies against an order made under Rule 1 of Order XL. It is clear, however, that the order made by the Court below is not the final order appointing a Receiver of the property in suit. That order was made by the Court below after the present appeal had been lodged in this Court. We are informed that on the 24th January 1910 the office of Receiver was offered to one Rashbehary Mandal, who, however, did not intimate, his acceptance of the same. The result was that on the 2nd February his appointment was cancelled, and Nakuleswar Bose was appointed Receiver. The order which was appealable under the Code was this final order, but no appeal up to the present time has been preferred against it. There is, in our opinion, no room for reasonable doubt that the interlocutory order now before us is not open to appeal. The appeal is, therefore, premature and must be dismissed. As the respondents did not object to the incompetency of the appeal, there will be no order for costs.