NADEEM MAJID OOMERBHOY Vs. HANS RAJ JASSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20 July 1999, a lease deed was executed by the erstwhile partnership of Ahmed Oomerbhoy with the First Respondent, the landlord, in respect of the suit premises bearing No.43, Shopping Centre-I, Manasarovar Garden, New Delhi. In a suit for dissolution and accounts of the partnership firm, which was filed in this Court, an ad-interim order was passed on 6 December 2000, appointing the Court Receiver as Receiver of the firm and of its assets. In January 2002, the First Respondent instituted a suit before the Civil Judge at Delhi Suit 20 of 2005 for the recovery of possession of the suit premises on account of arrears of rent. The Court Receiver was impleaded in the proceedings before the Trial Court on 16 October 2002. However, leave of this Court was not taken for proceeding with the suit against the Court Receiver. The suit proceeded ex-parte and a decree for possession was passed on 23 July 2005. A Chamber Summons was taken out by the First Respondent in June 2011 for the following relief :

(2.) The challenge to the order of the Learned Single Judge is on the ground that no leave was sought from this Court for proceeding with the suit against the Court Receiver until the decree was passed. It has been urged that as a result, the suit proceeded ex-parte and it would be too late in the day to seek leave after the decree was passed.

(3.) The genesis of the requirement of obtaining the leave of the Court to proceed against the Court Receiver is that once a Receiver has been appointed, the property is custodia legis. Hence, the institution of a legal action without obtaining the leave of the Court, may amount to interference with the process of the Court.