Rodger vs Ashutosh Mukerji

Sale, J.—The Receiver is not interested in that way; you do not want a declaration of title against him. I can understand the case where it is necessary to make the Receiver a party as representing the beneficial owners, but I do not see the necessity of making both the beneficial owners and the receivers parties. The case of Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China v. Hurish Chunder Neogy and others 5 C.W.N. xv (1900) does not show that the Receiver is a necessary party to the suit. He was not to be a party to the suit in that case, but it was submitted that as there was a Receiver appointed over the property that it might be a contempt of Court to bring a suit with regard to that property without leave. There are also cases where, for instance, the Receiver has made a contract in his own name or entered into a contract in his own name. There for simplicity''s sake he is made a party. In the present case, I do not see why you want to make the Receiver a party. I can follow the case of Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China v. Hurish Chunder Neogy and others 5 C.W.N. xv (1900) so far as to give you leave to sue, but without making the Receiver a party.