JUDGMENT - SUJATA MANOHAR, J.:---The applicants are joint receivers of various properties of the 1st defendant and were appointed as such joint receivers by the Calcutta High Court in Suit No. 297 of 1983 before the Calcutta High Court. The suit filed in the Calcutta High Court was a representative suit, filed by the creditors of the present 1st defendant. The applicants, who are barristers practising in the Calcutta High Court, were initially appointed by the Court as joint special officers under its order dated 11th May, 1983. Thereafter they were appointed as joint receivers under an order dated 23rd November, 1983. Two of the properties of which they were appointed joint receivers are Flat No. G-68 of Manikmoti Apartment, Sarla Co-operative Hosing Society Ltd. at Bombay and Flat No. 6, Jaya Apartments, Juhu vile Parle Development Scheme, Bombay. 2. Pursuant to the order of 11th May, 1983 the applicants came down to Bombay and, inter alia, took possession of these two flats on or about 1st June, 1983. This is recorded in the minutes which are annexed as Exhibit 'B' to the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. 3. Around the same time the present suit was filed in this Court by various creditors of the 1st defendant on 11th March, 1983. In this suit Court Receiver was appointed receiver inter alia of these two properties. The Court Receiver appointed by this Court charge of these two flats on 11th January, 1984. Thereafter an ex parte decree was passed in this suit on 13th March, 1984. The Court Receiver continued to remain in possession as receiver in execution. The applicants, in or about March 1984 found that the Court Receiver appointed by this Court had, without their knowledge or without any intimation to them, purported to take charge of these two flats. Thereupon they took out Chamber Summons in this Court being Chamber Summons No. 446 of 1984 inter alia for obtaining possession of these two flats. 4. By order dated 6th July, 1984 passed by this Court in the Chamber Summons the Court Receiver appointed in the present suit was restrained from disturbing or in any manner interfering with the possession of the applicants as joint receivers in the Calcutta High Court Suit No. 297 of 1983. The Court Receiver appointed in this suit was directed to remove his padlock and board. The Court Receiver appointed in this suit was directed to remove his padlock and board. Pursuant to this order possession of these two flats was handed over to the joint Receivers on 16th October, 1984. Thereafter orders have been passed by the Calcutta High Court on 28th May, 1985 and 19th of December, 1986 inter alia granting permission to the applicants to sell these two flats and also to let out the said flat in Jaya Apartments. 5. In execution of the decree passed in this suit the plaintiffs have levied attachments on these two flats under a warrant of attachment dated 4th September, 1986. These warrants of attachments have been issued without obtaining permissions of the Calcutta High Court and without any notice to the applicants. The present Chamber Summons is to raise these attachments. 6. Under Order 21, Rule 52 where the property to be attached is in the custody of any Court or public officer, the attachment shall be made by a notice to such Court or officer, requesting that such property may be held subject to the further orders of the Court form which the notice is issued. In the present case although the plaintiffs were aware that the applicants were in possession as joint receivers appointed by the Calcutta High court (the Plaintiffs were parties to the Chamber Summons which was taken out in this Court by the applicants for obtaining possession), no notice was given to the applicants. And the attachment is not leived in the manner prescribed under Order 21, Rule 52 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. The plaintiffs contend that the order of this Court dated 6th July 1984 directing the Court Receiver to hand over possession to the applicants is nullity because the Court became functus officio on the passing of the ex parte decree. No chamber summons can lie thereafter before the Court. The contention has no merit. The Court Receiver was continued as Receiver in execution. An application relating to his possession was maintainable. In any case, this objection has no relevance because in fact possession was handed over to the applicants as joint receivers under this order. 8. In the case of (Kanhaiyalal v. Dr. The contention has no merit. The Court Receiver was continued as Receiver in execution. An application relating to his possession was maintainable. In any case, this objection has no relevance because in fact possession was handed over to the applicants as joint receivers under this order. 8. In the case of (Kanhaiyalal v. Dr. D.R. Banaji and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 725 the Supreme Court has observed that Orders 21, Rule 52 of the Civil Procedure Code requires that where the property is in the custody of any Court or public Officer, attachment shall be made by a notice to such Court or officer. The absence of such a notice would not render the sale void ab-initio. But proceedings taken in respect of a property which is in the possession or management of Receiver appointed by Court under Order 40, Rule 1 without the leave of the Court are illegal in the sense that the party proceeding against the property without the leave of this Court concerned is liable to be committed for contempt of Court. The proceedings so held do not affect the interest in the hands of the receiver who holds the property for the benefit of the party who ultimately, may be adjudged by the Court to be entitled to the same. The judgment also goes on to state that the genera rule that property in custodia legis through its duly appointed Receiver is exempt from judicial process except to the extent that the leave of that Court has been obtained, is based on a very sound reason of public policy, namely, that there should be no conflict of jurisdiction between different Court. 9. Similarly in the case of (Everest Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others)2, reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2304 it has been observed as under :--- "When the Court puts a Receiver in possession of property, the property comes under Court custody, the Receiver being merely an officer or agent of the Court. Any obstruction or interference with the Court's possession sounds in contempt of that Court. Any legal action in respect of that property is in a sense such an interference and invites the contempt penalty of likely invalidation of the suit or other proceedings. Any obstruction or interference with the Court's possession sounds in contempt of that Court. Any legal action in respect of that property is in a sense such an interference and invites the contempt penalty of likely invalidation of the suit or other proceedings. But if either before stating the action or during its continuance, the party takes the leave of the Court, the proceeding may continue to a conclusion on the merits." 10. In the present case the plaintiffs have attached the properties without complying with the requirements of Order 21, Rule 52. They are also now proposing to sell these properties without obtaining leave from the Calcutta High Court. An attachment which is levied in respect of the property in possession of the Court Receiver without complying with the requirements of Order 21, Rule 52 would not be valid attachment in law. It is of course open to the Plaintiffs to take requisite steps under Order 21, Rule 52 for attaching the said property or to obtain the leave of the Calcutta High Court for selling the said property. 11. It is pointed out by Mr. Masand, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs that Flat No. 6 in Jaya Apartments, Juhu Vile Parle Development Scheme, Bombay which is vacant, is proposed to be let out by the applicants under the directions given by the Calcutta High Court. He submits that this is against the interests of the creditiors. In view of the operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), it will be extremely difficult to obtain vacant possession of this flat from the licensee or tenant of such flat once the flat is let out. The market value of this extremely valuable flat will be destroyed if the flat is let out or given on leave and licence basis. There is considerable substance in the contention of Mr. Masand. It will be open to him to make an application to the Calcutta High Court if he so desires in this connection. 12. The attachment levied in the present case is in violation of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is bad in law and must be set aside. Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer (c). 12. The attachment levied in the present case is in violation of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is bad in law and must be set aside. Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer (c). The applicants state that they will not take any further steps regarding the sale of the said two flats and they will to let out, give on leave and licence or part with possession of Flat No. 6, Jaya Apartments for a period of six weeks from today. The applicants to give notice to the plaintiffs herein through their advocates or any steps they propose to take in respect of the said two flats. Order accordingly. -----