K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

1. These two Judges orders are for leave to applicants to continue to sue and prosecute the suit against defendant no.5 who was appointed as Private Receiver by an order dated 13.4.2018 passed in Notice of Motion (L) No.916 of 2018 in Suit No.224 of 1961. None of the defendants including defendant no.5 has filed any affidavit in reply opposing the Judge's order. Counsel for defendant nos.1 & 2 states that these applications should be made before the same Court which appointed defendant no.5 as the Receiver. This is the Court to which the assignment of all Chamber matters is given and all Judge's Orders are heard by this Court. Therefore, this submission of Counsel for defendant nos.1 & 2 is without substance.

2. Ms. Singhania for defendant nos.5 to 8 and 12 & 13 raises two legal submissions, (a) Notice under Rule 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the Private Receiver before suing him is mandatory and (b) not giving such notice is fatal to the suit. For these submissions, Ms. Singhania relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, (1978) 1 SCC 12. and Anna Laticia Dsilva Vs. Govind Balvant Parashare, (1920) ILR(Bom) 895.

3. There can be no dispute with the submissions made by Ms. Singhania that if a party feeling aggrieved by conduct of the Receiver, seeks redress against him, party must obtain leave of the Court. The Receiver is protected by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against any plaintiff who files a suit against him and if Receiver is sued without giving requisite notice, it will be fatal. The reason why this rule came to be introduced was because it was based on a public policy which requires that when Court has assumed possession of the property in the interest of litigants before it, the authority of the Court is not to be obstructed by suits designed to disturb the possession of the Court. Paragraph-7 of Everest Coal Company (supra) reads as under :-

"7. Mulla, with characteristic clarify, has condense the whole law correctly :

A receiver cannot sue or be sued except with the leave of the Court by which he was appointed receiver. A party feeling aggrieved by the conduct of a receiver may seek redress against him in the very suit in which he was appointed receiver, or he may bring a separate suit against the receiver in which case he must obtain the leave of the Court.

There is no statutory provision which requires a party to take the leave of the Court to sue a receiver. The rule has come down to us as a part of the rules of equity, binding upon all Courts of Justice in this country. It is a rule based upon public policy which requires that when the Court has assumed possession of a property in the interest of the litigants before it, the authority of the Court is not to be obstructed by suits designed to disturb the possession of the Court. The institution of such suits is in the eye of the law a contempt of the authority of the Court and therefore, the party contemplating such a suit is required to take the leave of the Court so as to absolve himself form 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.

In Pramaltha Nath Vs. Netra Nath 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 suit should be dismissed. This decision was dissented from in subsequent Calcutta cases where it was held that the leave may be granted even after the institution of the suit.

Leave subsequently obtained at the time of realising rents directly from the tenants will suffice. In a Bombay case (Jamshedji v. Hussainbhai) Pratt, J, after an exhaustive review of t