JUDGMENT

Baguley, J - This is an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant District Judge of Maubin. The appellants obtained a decree against the M.P.N. Firm. In Civil Regular No. 6 of 1933 of the Assistant District Court of Maubin one of the partners in the M.P.N. Firm sued the other partners for disso-3ution of partnership, and Mr. M.R. Basu was appointed receiver to take charge of the property of the M.P.N. Firm. The appellant firm then applied to the Assistant District Court of Maubin for an order giving them permission to execute a decree against property belonging to the M.P.N. Firm in the hands of the receiver. The Judge passed an order which ends as follows:

Under the circumstances, permission, is granted to execute the decree against M.P.N. Firm on condition that the land attached must be at the rate of Rs. 200 per acre. Each party will bear its own cost.

2. The meaning of this order is obscure. There seems to have been an idea that the appellant should take over a certain area of land and give credit for it at the rate of Rs. 200 an acre, but that is not "attaching land at the rate of Rs. 200 par acre." In addition to this it must be remarked that this application for permission to execute the decree is not made under the Civil P.C., nor, so far as I am aware, under any law at all. The procedure which was adopted was adopted, no doubt, in view of certain remarks to be found in Mulla's Civil Procedure Code, Order 21, Rule 52. Order 21, Section 52 is quite clear:

Where the property to be attached is in the custody of any Court or public officer, the attachment shall be made by a notice to such Court or officer, requesting that such property, and any interest or dividend becoming payable thereon, may De held subject to the further orders of the Court from which the notice is "issued."

3. This is quite clear and unequivocal. Nothing is said about permission being obtained to make such an attachment. In the commentary however there is the statement that no attachment of money in the hands of a receiver can be made without the previous permission or sanction of the Court, and a reference is made to two cases: Mahomed v. Mahomed Nurin (1894) 21 Cal. 85 and Khan v. Alii Mahomed Haji Umer (1891) 16 Bom. 577. The first case is a case decided on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court. At p. 91 (of 21 Cal.) of the report occurs the passage:

It is not suggested * * * that the Court has ever recognized an attachment made without the permission of the Court. On the other hand, there are cases where it is pointed out that property in the hands of the receiver is hot liable to attachment without the sanction of the Court appointing the receiver. The case of Khan v. Alli Mahomed Haji Umer (1891) 16 Bom. 577 lays down that this is the practice also in the High Court at Bombay. To that practice I propose to adhere.

4. It will be seen therefore that this is a practice, not a provision of the Code, and although a High Court may have its, own rules of practice, these rules of, practice are not binding upon Mofussil Courts which are bound by the Civil Procedure Code and nothing else. In Khan v. Alli Mahomed Haji Umer (1891) 16 Bom. 577 there is no reference also to the Civil Procedure Code. This case was also tried on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, and in the judgment there is a reference to the 'rule' that:

before any one can interfere with the possession of a receiver, the leave of the Court must first be obtained.

5. In K.K. Secunder v. J.A.M. Kasiyar & Co. A.I.R. 1923 Rang. 208, a case on the Original Side of this High Court, the judgment seems to make it dear that a petition for the return of certain goods in the possession of the Official Receiver was allowed to be proceeded with although permission of the Court to proceed against him had not been obtained in advance. A reference might also be made to Nensukhagavari v. Rajabally Mulla Abdul Kadar A.I.R. 1927 Bom. 405, which shows that on the Original Side of the Bombay