Judgment :- 1. Decree-holders are the revision petitioners. The three revision petitions are against three orders dismissing execution petitions in three cases. All are money decrees. 2. OS No. 26/65 is a suit for partition of the assets of the tarwad of the judgment debtors in the aforesaid three cases. In that case a preliminary decree for partition was passed. The matter is now pending in final decree proceedings. In that case a receiver was appointed by the court and the assets of the tarwad are in the possession and management of the said receiver. Out of the assets belonging to the tarwad amounts in deposit before Land Tribunals are also included. 3. In the aforesaid three execution petitions the decree-holders sought attachment of the amounts in deposit in the Special Land Tribunal, Vadakkancerry to the credit of the judgment debtors who are parties to OS 26 of 1965. The judgment debtors did not contest the execution petitions. The Advocate-receiver, what was impleaded in execution, alone contested. Accepting his contentions the execution court dismissed the execution petitions on three grounds, namely (1) sanction of the court which appointed the receiver was not applied for or obtained in order to proceed against him for realisation of the amount (2) the share to which the judgment debtors are entitled is not specified in the execution petitions and (3) the case number in the Land Tribunal to the credit of which the amounts are lying in deposit is also not mentioned. These are the orders against which the three revision petitions are filed. 4. Leave of the court which appointed the receiver for the initiation of proceedings, civil or criminal, against the receiver is insisted not on the basis of any statutory requirement. That rule is evolved by judicial pronouncements. Receiver also may have to obtain sanction from court for launching legal proceedings in his capacity as receiver. Leave is insisted for several reasons. Receiver is an officer of the court. When a receiver is appointed and be takes possession of the properties it is in possession of the court. Courts will be always interested in preserving the properties which are thus held in custody for being handed over to the successful party. Any invasion into the rights of the receiver is considered an affront on the dignity and authority of the court which it is bound to protect and preserve. Courts will be always interested in preserving the properties which are thus held in custody for being handed over to the successful party. Any invasion into the rights of the receiver is considered an affront on the dignity and authority of the court which it is bound to protect and preserve. Being an officer of the court holding the assets as per its orders on behalf of the successful party the court has got the duty to see that the receiver is not unnecessarily harassed by litigations for what he is doing or omitting to do in the bona fide discharge of his official functions. Frivolous or vexatious prosecutions or civil actions against the receiver will have to be avoided. For that purpose a screening by the court is necessary. The person who intends to take action against the receiver will have to approach the court which appointed him and place the entire facts before it. It is for the court to consider those facts and decide whether the action is justified or not. No court will entertain an action against the receiver for what he has done or omitted in his official capacity without such a sanction. Normally sanction will not be refused unless it is found to be frivolous or vexatious because merits are matters to be decided by the court before which the action is tried. It was so held in Everest Coal Co. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1977 SC 2304) and various other decisions. If the action is for anything unconnected with the discharge of duties as receiver the question of sanction itself will not arise. 5. In this case the question of sanction itself will not arise. Sanction is required only when the receiver is sought to be proceeded against as such for getting some relief or for penalising him. Here there is no question of proceeding against the receiver. Revision petitioners only wanted attachment of the amounts belonging to the judgment debtors in court deposit to the credit of the case in which the receiver was appointed. That is not in any way proceeding against the receiver. It was not necessary for them to implead the receiver as a respondent in the execution petitions because there is no question of claiming any relief against him in his official or personal capacity. That is not in any way proceeding against the receiver. It was not necessary for them to implead the receiver as a respondent in the execution petitions because there is no question of claiming any relief against him in his official or personal capacity. It would have been enough for them to comply with the provisions of 0.21 R.52 CPC. 6. According to 0.21 R.52 when the property to be attached is in the custody of any court or any public officer, the attachment shall be made by a notice to such court or officer, requesting that such property, and any interest or dividend becoming payable thereon, may be held subject to further orders of the court from which the notice is issued. For the reason that the property over which the receiver has possession or control is deemed to be property in the custody of the court, the provisions of 0.21 R.52 will not become inapplicable. When execution is desired in respect of property in the hands of a receiver or other officer of a court, the procedure laid down in 0.21 R.52 could be followed. There is no necessity in such cases to have the leave of the court which appointed the receiver. Leave will be necessary only when execution is desired directly against the receiver without the intervention of the court appointing him. The reason is that when the procedure under 0.21 R.52 is adopted there is no question of proceeding against the receiver in execution and what is involved is only a procedure through the intervention of the court requesting such amount to be held subject to further orders. It was so held in Basdeo v. John And Co. (AIR 1955 Allahabad 717) and I am in respectful agreement with that view. By the mere fact that the receiver was impleaded in the execution petition without any necessity the proceeding will not change its character and get itself converted into one against the receiver without the intervention of the court. The order of attachment is having only the effect of a direction or a prohibition to bold the property subject to further orders and not to deal with it in violation of the direction. For adopting such a course there is no question of approaching the court and getting its permission. The order of attachment is having only the effect of a direction or a prohibition to bold the property subject to further orders and not to deal with it in violation of the direction. For adopting such a course there is no question of approaching the court and getting its permission. Even without the permission of the court having custody of the property directly or through an officer the decree-holder can resort to such a course. The view taken by the execution court in this respect is wrong and leave is not necessary. The proviso to R.52 is not applicable in this case because no question of deciding title or priority between the decree-holders and any other persons is involved. What was required here was only a notice to the court or the officer to hold the amount subject to further orders. For such a procedure the previous consideration or sanction by the court is not necessary. 7. The second and third grounds relied on by the execution court are hyper technical. It is true that the share to which the judgment debtors are entitled and the number of case before the Land Tribunal are not specified in the execution petitions. OS 26 of 1965 is a case in which a preliminary decree has been passed ascertaining the shares of the parties. The share to which the judgment debtors are entitled in the amounts in deposit is a matter well known to them as well as the receiver and the court which appointed him. If necessary the execution court could have directed the decree holders to file an additional statement or get the execution petitions corrected by specifying the exact amounts. That is the position so far as the case number is also concerned. I was told that fresh execution petitions will be barred by limitation also. In such a situation I do not think that the dismissal of the E. Ps. on that ground will in any way advance the cause of justice. Therefore I think that for this matter the case will have to be remitted to the execution Court. 8. CRPs. are therefore allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The execution court will take back all the three execution petitions and proceed with the same on the merits according to law in the light of what is directed above. Therefore I think that for this matter the case will have to be remitted to the execution Court. 8. CRPs. are therefore allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The execution court will take back all the three execution petitions and proceed with the same on the merits according to law in the light of what is directed above. The execution court will give the decree holders an opportunity to specify the exact amounts and the number of cases by amending the attachment schedule or otherwise. There will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that what is liable to attachment by the decree holders is nothing more than the share of the amounts due to the concerned judgment debtor.