Curgenven, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 19th defendant, a Receiver in a pending mortgage suit, against the finding of the Subordinate Judge under the 20th issue, whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The contention is, of course, that the Receiver is a public officer, and that has not been disputed before me. But the point in issue is whether the suit is against him "in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity." I think it is clear that those words refer to a past act and not to any action merely contemplated or threatened. This has been held by a Bench of this Court in Arunachalam Chetty v. David 99 Ind.Cas.284 : 50 M. 239 : 24 L.W.730 : 51 M.L.J.671 : A.I.R.1927Mad.166, which was a suit for a prepetual injunction restraining an Official Receiver from selling certain property which vested in him in insolvency. I am asked to hold that the later Privy Council case, Bhagchand Dagadas v. Secretary of State for India 104Ind.Cas.257 : 53 B. 725 : 26 L.W.809 : 53 M.L.J.81, A. I. R. 1927 P. C. 176 : 25 A.L.J.641 : 29 Bom.L.R.1227 : (1927) M.W.N.561 : 46 C.L.J.76 : I Luc