Receiver in execution matters is exceptional; ordinary attachment and sale remain the normal remedy absent special grounds.

In execution of a balance order, the ordinary mode of attachment and sale remains the normal remedy, and appointment of a receiver is justified only on special grounds showing that attachment and sale is inappropriate in the particular case. The Court held that the mere existence of properties in different localities, or the likelihood of delay and expense from separate proceedings, does not by itself warrant departure from the usual execution process. The request for a receiver was therefore rejected, and execution was confined to attachment and sale.

---

---

Issues: Whether a receiver should be appointed in execution of the balance order, or whether execution should proceed by the ordinary method of attachment and sale.

Analysis: The application sought an extraordinary mode of execution by appointment of a receiver. The Court held that the circumstances pleaded did not justify departing from the normal process of execution by attachment and sale. It observed that the mere fact that property is situate in different localities, or that separate proceedings may involve delay or expense, is not sufficient to displace the ordinary mode of execution. The Court further stated that, even in proceedings relating to a balance order, a receiver is not the usual remedy and should be appointed only where special grounds are shown making attachment and sale inappropriate in the particular case.

Conclusion: The request for appointment of a receiver was rejected and execution was confined to the ordinary mode of attachment and sale.

Ratio Decidendi: In execution of a balance order, the ordinary mode of attachment and sale remains the normal remedy, and a receiver will not be appointed unless special grounds are shown making that mode inappropriate.

---