(Rani) Parygag Kumar Devi and Another vs Bhudhar Mal Chaudhury

This appeal must be allowed on the first ground raised by the appellants namely that the leave of the Calcutta High Court was necessary before an attachment could issue against the property in the hands of a receiver appointed by that Court. Sale, J. in Mahommad Zohurddeen v. Mahommed Nooroodeen [1894] 21 Cal. 85 observed as follows:

The appointment of a receiver operates as an injunction against the parties, their agents and persons claiming under them, restraining them from interfering with the possession of the receiver, except by permission of the Court. I think that the words of Section 272, (O. 21, Rule 52) were not intended to alter, and do not in fact after, what has been the practice of this Court which is to require that persons attaching property in the hands of the receiver of this Court should previously obtain the permission and sanction of this Court, and to regard an attachment not so authorized as a breach of the injunction and therefore a contempt of Court.

The learned Subordinate Judge has not in our opinion shown any good ground for not following this authority. It is unnecessary to deal with the other points raised in the appeal which must be allowed and the order of attachment set aside. As the respondent does not appear there will be no order as to costs.