Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) 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-appellant, cancelled the contract wrongfully - such is his case. Thereupon, the appellant sued the Receiver in damages after giving notice under S. 80, C.P.C. However, he somehow failed to move the court for cancelling the earlier order passed to his prejudice in which case perhaps the court might have reconsidered the order and issued directions to his Receiver. We are not concerned with that aspect of the case and we do not propose to make any speculative observations thereon. Although the plaintiff-appellant omitted to get leave from the court before suing the Receiver, he made up for it, on second thoughts, by applying to the Court for permission to continue the litigation against the Receiver. When that proceeding came up for hearing, the learned subordinate Judge dismissed it on the view that since the petitioner had already filed a suit without leave of the court, the question of grant of permission to continue it did not arise. The court's observations which we think are both unhelpful and erroneous and keeps the parties in suspense, are couched in these words: "If the petitioner has already filed the suit without leave of the court, he has already taken the risk and now the question does not arise for giving a fresh permission in the matter of continuing the suit. Because of the T. S. 74 of 1975 already instituted, the prayer for permission to continue the same 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 harm the petitioner."
(3.) In our view, when any proceeding comes before the court for adjudication it is desirable to decide the point instead of mystifying the situation by avoiding a clear-cut disposal. A stitch in time saves nine.;