JUDGMENT (1.) THE judgment of the full Bench of the Court of the Small Causes of Calcutta in Suit No. 3272 of 1973 of the 3rd Bench has been challenged under the instant revision. (2.) ON August 3, 1973, Suit No, 3272 of 1973 was commenced by the opposite party no. 1 against the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 for recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered. While contesting the suit by the petitioner it was stated that a Receiver had already been appointed by this Court in Suit no. 339 of 1970 for realisation of debts and payment of money to the creditors of the Firm under the name and style Bansdeo set and Co. ' on September 11, 1970. According to the petitioner the. Receiver was a necessary party. Such contention was overruled by the trial Judge as well as by the Judges of the Full Bench. (3.) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the present suit was instituted for realisation of the unpaid price of goods sold and supplied amounting to Rs. 1188/-plus Rs. 427/- as interest against two partners who were carrying on business as partners of the Firm Messrs. 'bansdeo Set and Co. ' it was found by the learned Judges that the challans (Ext. 1) was issued in the name of the Firm Messrs. Bansdeo Set and Co. of which the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were partners. Similarly Ext. 2 the relevant bill was also drawn up in the name of the firm. In a suit for dissolution of Firm a receiver was admittedly appointed on 11.9.70. (4.) MR. Anil Kumar Set, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that while the assets of the Firm were in the hand of the Receiver the partners should not have been sued in their personal capacity and as such the Receiver was a necessary party. He drew my attention. to Section 25 of the partnership Act, 1932, which lays down that every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also" severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. Next he drew my attention to Section 46 of the Act which gives right of partners to have business wound up after dissolution. to Section 25 of the partnership Act, 1932, which lays down that every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also" severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. Next he drew my attention to Section 46 of the Act which gives right of partners to have business wound up after dissolution. On such dissolution every partner will be entitled to have the property of the Firm applied in payment of the debts and liabilities of the Firm. Under Section 48 the assets of the Firm shall be applied in paying the debts of the Firm to a third party. Section 49 of the Act lays down that where there are joint debts due from the Firm and also separate debts due from any partner the property of the Firm shall be applied in the first instance in payment of the debts of the Firm. Having regard to the provisions of the law referred to above, it is contended by Mr. Sett that in payment of debts and liabilities the assets of the Firm should be applied at the first instance and if that be insufficient next in that case the creditor can fall upon the personal property of the partners. In order to ascertain whether the assets of the Firm were sufficient or not the receiver appointed by this Court was a necessary party: Thus it is contended by mr. Set that the learned courts below were not justified in refusing to entertain the prayer for imp leading the Receiver as a party to the suit. Mr. Set refers to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Kedar Alt Fakir vs. Gobinda Bandhu Dutta, reported in A. I. R. 1946 Calcutta, 127, In support of his argument that in a case of this nature a Receiver was a necessary party. In this suit it is held that appointment of a Receiver does not in any way affect the rights of a third party creditor who has claims against the persons over whose property the Receiver has been appointed. If such a creditor files a suit, he must make his debtors parties to the same. In this suit it is held that appointment of a Receiver does not in any way affect the rights of a third party creditor who has claims against the persons over whose property the Receiver has been appointed. If such a creditor files a suit, he must make his debtors parties to the same. The only difference that the appointment of a Receiver makes is that if the property in the opinion of the receiver is intended to be affected by the result of such a suit, the Receiver has got to be made a party after obtaining leave from the Court. (5.) IN reply to such arguments Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate for the opposite party contends that a Receiver is not a necessary party in the suit. If necessary he could be made a party with the leave of the Court during the execution proceedings. He places reliance in the case of C. Satyanarayana vs. Kanumarlapudi Lakshmi Narasimhia, reported in A.I.R. 1968 A. P. 330. In this case a single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that in a suit for money against the partners of the firm even where the firm was dissolved, the Receiver holding possession of the firm's property was not a necessary party. In such cases if the plaintiff obtained a decree he could go to the executing court, obtain the leave of that court to execute the decree against the property in possession of the Receiver and belonging to the firm, in case the decree-holder wanted to proceed against such property. But his Lordship at page 332 of the report makes it clear that in case where the property in the hands of a receiver in intended to be affected by the result of the suit and the possession of the receiver or the jurisdiction of the court appointing the receiver is intended, to be interfered with, leave of the court appointing the receiver becomes necessary, and the Receiver also becomes a necessary party. Taking a clue from this Mr. Set argues that a Receiver has been appointed by the Calcutta High court after dissolution of the partnership and that Receiver is in possession of the entire assets of the dissolved firm. In the above circumstances, it is contended by Mr. Taking a clue from this Mr. Set argues that a Receiver has been appointed by the Calcutta High court after dissolution of the partnership and that Receiver is in possession of the entire assets of the dissolved firm. In the above circumstances, it is contended by Mr. Set that the Opposite party has no escape without making the Receiver as a party for realisation of the dues or price of the goods supplied to the partners and not to the members individually. According to Mr. Set it is for the plaintiff to make attempt fist for realisation of the dues from the assets of the dissolved firm in the hands of the Receiver and if the funds be insufficient in that case only the plaintiff can recover the un-recovered balance of the dues from the individual partners. (6.) NEXT, Mr. Chatterjee refers: to the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the case of Maharani Janki koer vs. Sham Sivendra Sahi, reported in 10 C. L. J. 23. In this case Mr. Justice mookherjee delivering the judgment of the Court observed that when the decree for mesne profits is made, the decree-holder may find it necessary to proceed against the equity of redemption to enable him to realize his dues. When he finds himself in that position, if the Receiver, appointed in the course of the mortgage suit, was then found to be in possession of the mortgaged properties, the execution creditor may have to obtain the leave of the Court before he can attach the properties in execution. But before he arrives at that stage it is not necessary for him to bring the Receiver before the court and it is absolutely immaterial to the Receiver for what amount a decree for mesne profits is obtained by the decree-holder against the mortgagor. Mr. Set distinguishing the case points out that in a case for recovery of money on mortgage the mortgagee cart fall upon the mortgaged property as well as properties of the mortgagor independently and simultaneously; in such a suit according to him there was; no obligation that the decree-holder was to fall upon the mortgaged property first. Last of all Mr. Chatterjee cites the decision in the case of Lakshmi Narayan Mistanna Prathisthan vs. Suresh Chandra Das, reported in 1980 (1) C. H. N, 306. In this case also Mr. Last of all Mr. Chatterjee cites the decision in the case of Lakshmi Narayan Mistanna Prathisthan vs. Suresh Chandra Das, reported in 1980 (1) C. H. N, 306. In this case also Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee lays down the principles when a Receiver was to be made a party to the suit. Mr. Set also distinguishes the facts of that case with one in hand. In that case the Receiver did not take possession of the suit building but according to Mr. Set the Receiver appointed by the Calcutta high Court was in possession of the entire assets of the dissolved firm. Next, the plaintiff and the defendants were parties to such suit. Thirdly in that case the interest of the Receiver was not in any way prejudiced by the institution of the suit, nor was there any scope of conflict of jurisdiction between the court appointing the Receiver and the Court where the present suit was filed and the Receiver was not appointed to protect the interest of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendants. Under this circumstances the Receiver according to the learned Judge was neither a necessary party in that suit nor was the leave of the Court was necessary for institution of the suit As stated earlier the facts of the present case are quite distinct. (7.) THUS on hearing the arguments of both the parties and haying regard to the decision reported in A.I.R. 1946 Cal. 127 (Supra) and also having regard to the provision of the Indian partnership Act, 1932. I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case a Receiver was a necessary party to the suit and that also for avoiding all future complications. (8.) IN the premises, the finding of the lower court below cannot be sustained. The application for revision is allowed with costs. Advocate's fees assessed at 5 G. M. The Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders are set aside. The learned trial Judge would consider the prayer for adding the Receiver as a party to the suit on obtaining leave from this Court who is appointed the Receiver in Suit No. 339 of 1970. Rule made absolute with costs.