DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) A non -party to the suit applied for leave to sue the Receiver appointed in the present suit. The suit was in respect of disputes relating to ''Trust Estate of Jitendra Mullick ''. The trust created by a registered deed of trust dated August 16, 1949. The nonparty claimed the said trust as owner of premises No. 7A, Kiran Sankar Roy Road, Kolkata - 700001 had agreed to grant lease of the said premises with the non -party and had entered into an agreement dated September 1, 1982 modified on July 30, 1984 for such purpose. The non -party had filed suit being C.S. No. 738 of 1987 praying, inter alia, for specific performance of such agreement and a decree for possession of premises No. 7A, Kiran Sankar Roy Road, Kolkata - 700001.
(2.) IT was submitted on behalf of the non -party that it was granted leave to intervene in the instant suit by an order dated December 24, 1996. A Receiver was appointed in the instant suit. Diverse orders were passed from time to time in the instant suit. The Receiver appointed in the present suit was in respect of all the trust properties which included the said premises. The nonparty contended that there was an order of injunction restraining the parties to the present suit or their children from entering into any arrangement or arrangements as regards the trust properties. The non -party wanted to settle the disputes in its suit for specific performance being C.S. No. 738 of 1987. While considering such settlement the non -party found such impediments and, therefore, prayed that they should be granted leave to sue the Receiver. Incidentally it was pointed out on behalf of the non -party that the same Receiver was appointed as Receiver in C.S. No. 738 of 1987. The application was opposed on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff. It was contended on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 that the non -party cannot be added as a party to the instant suit. The Defendant No. 2 also relied on orders passed from time to time in the present suit which restrained the parties from entering into any arrangement or arrangements in respect of the trust properties to submit that the leave as prayed for the non -party should not be granted.
(3.) THE plaintiff of the instant suit also opposed the application of the non -party. The plaintiff did not want the non -party to intervene in the instant suit. The plaintiff was however agreeable to an order permitting the non -party to sue the Receiver appointed in the suit.;