PAZHANI ANANDI ACHARI Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that is raised before me is whether leave is necessary for suing the Official Receiver appointed in an insolvency proceeding.

(2.) The petitioner approached the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, where O.P. (IP) No. 2/89 was pending, seeking permission to sue the Official Receiver. It was contended that the petitioner has been in possession and occupation of a building available in the property (T.C. 20/915) which is involved in the said proceeding, from 1987 onwards as a tenant under Act 2 of 1965 and notwithstanding the execution of fresh document in favour of the Official Receiver appointed in the case in 1996, his rights remain unchanged. The petition itself was filed based on an earlier order passed by the Munsiff s Court where under the plaint was returned with a direction that it could be reproduced with leave obtained from the Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below went wrong in relying on the decision in Alikcoya v. Narayanan Nair and in Shyam Sunder Dutta v. Baifcuntha Nath Banerjee. It is agrued that in both these cases, the question was regarding rights and powers of the Receivers appointed under Order 40 Rule 1 of the CPC and that the position of such Receiver is entirely different from the Official Receiver, who pursuant to an order of adjudication, has taken over the assets in an insolvency proceeding.