Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J. - This appeal, where we have granted leave, can be disposed of right away, now that we have heard brief submissions from both sides. The facts are few, the issue is single and the solution simple, but to silence conflicting voices from different High Courts and to clarify the law for the sake of certainty we have chosen to 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?

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit instituted by him against respondent I (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-defendant, after obtaining the permission of the court which appointed him, but without notice to the plaintiff-