9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (9) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make a short speaking order. The neat little legal point that arises is this : Can the court appointing a receiver to take charge of properties, grant leave to continue a suit against him when a third. party wants to prosecute such action initiated without such permission ? If so, what are the guidelines for grant of such leave ? The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit instituted by him against respondent 1 (defendant in the suit) who is a receiver appointed by the court under O.40,, r. 1 C.P.C. Briefly set out, the case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into a contract with the Receiver defendant relating to a coal mine which had come within his Receivership. While he was working the mine under the contract, the Receiver-defendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not arise as it is infructuous ... Rejected. A revision to the High Court did not improve matters because the application was dismissed in limine, with the rather innocuously wise statement : The law will have its own course and if in law the petitioner need not have taken the permission of the court for continuance of the title suit, no observation made by the learned Subordinate Judge can arm the petitioner. In our view, when any proceeding comes before the court for adjudication it is desirable to decide the point instead of mystyfying the situation by avoiding a clear-cut disposal. A stitch in time saves nine. The laconic affirmance by the High Court of the trial court's order has necessitated the appellant's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not based on blackletter law in the sense of enacted law. Any litigative disturbance of the court's. possession without its permission amounts to contempt of its authority; and the wages of contempt of court in this jurisdiction may well be voidability of the whole proceeding. Equally clearly, prior permission of the court appointing the Receiver is not a condition precedent to the enforcement of the cause of action. Nor is it so grave a vice that later leave sought and got before the decree has been passed will not purge it. If, before the suit terminates the relevant court is moved and permission to sue or to prosecute further is granted, the requirement of law is fulfilled. Of course, failure to secure such leave till the end of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and therefore, the party contemplating such a suit is required to take the leave of the Court so as to absolve himself from that charge. The grant of such leave is made not in exercise of any power conferred by statute, but in the exercise of the inherent power which every Court possesses to prevent acts which constitute or are akin to an abuse of its authority. x x x x In Pramatha Nath v. Katra Nath (1905) 32 Cal. 270 Bodilly J. held that the leave of the Court to sue a receiver was a condition precedent to right to sue, and that if the leave was not obtained before suit, it could not be granted subsequent to the institution of the suit and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore institution into a major, even fussy issue. Leave obtained before the lis terminates is a solvent of the contempt. The infirmity does not bear upon the jurisdiction of the trying court or the cause of action. It is perepheral. The extreme view taken in Pramatha Nath (ILR 32 Calcutta 270) is not good law. Banku Behari (15 CWN 54) a later ruling of the same High Court, has struck the correct note : But we are unable to appreciate upon what intelligible principle the position can be defended that because the suit has been instituted without leave Previously obtained it must necessarily be dismissed, and that it is not open to the Court to stay proceedings in the suit with a view of enable the Plaintiff to obtain leave of the Court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
