JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22-1-1999 passed by ADJ, District Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 7/1998 whereby the judgment dated 23-12-1997 passed by VI Civil Judge, Class II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 257-A/1995 whereby the suit filed by the Appellant for eviction was decreed, was set-aside, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the Appellant who is Advocate by profession filed a suit for eviction against the Respondent on 22-10-1980 wherein it was alleged that Appellant is the Receiver of property situated at 11, Siyaganj, Indore appointed by VI ADJ, Indore in Civil Suit No. 13/1978. It was alleged that Respondent is tenant in the suit accommodation ' Rs. 25/- per month. It was alleged that Respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-6-1980, which has not been paid in spite of notice of demand. It was prayed that a decree of eviction be passed. The suit was contested by the Respondent. After framing of issues and recording of evidence the learned Trial Court decreed the suit filed by Appellant against which an appeal was filed by the Respondent which was allowed and the judgment dated 23-12-1997 passed by VI Civil Judge, Class II, Indore was set aside, hence this appeal which was admitted for final hearing by this Court vide order dated 17-11-199 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff having not sought the permission of the Court appointing him Receiver to bring suit for ejectment renders the suit incompetent? (2) Whether it was necessary for the Plaintiff/Appellant to seek prior permission from the Court appointing him Receiver, to institute this suit for ejectment? 3. In the memo of appeal it is alleged that the learned Appellate Court committed error in holding that the Appellant have to obtain prior permission for filing the suit from the Court who appointed as Receiver. It is alleged that learned Appellate Court committed error in holding that it is only the suit for arrears of rent which could have been filed by the Appellant. It is alleged that the appeal filed by the Appellant be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court be set aside and the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court be restored. 4. It is alleged that the appeal filed by the Appellant be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court be set aside and the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court be restored. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that no illegality has been committed by learned Appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment whereby the appeal of the Appellant has been dismissed. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed. 5. In the matter of Nrishingha Charan Nandi Choudhry v. Thakur Ashutosh Deo Ghatwal AIR 1938 Pat 487 wherein a Division Bench of Patna High Court has held that before a suit for possession of property which is in possession of a Receiver appointed by the Court can be instituted against him, it is necessary to apply for and obtain sanction of the Court to bring the action. In the matter of Shyam Lal v. Nand Lal, AIR 1944 All 220 wherein Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in a case where Receiver is appointed under Order 40 Rule 1 of Code of Code of Civil Procedure permission of Court is absolutely necessary for the institution of a suit against him, the property does not vest in the Receiver and it remains with the Court but in the actual custody of the Receiver. In the matter of Everest Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 2304 , wherein a suit was filed against Receiver Hon'ble Apex Court has held that leave must be obtained either prior to filing of suit or during its pendency. It was further held that grant of leave is rule, refusal exception, rule is merely to prevent contempt. In the matter of Babulal v. Prakash Chandra Jain, 1984 MPWN 426 , wherein this Court has held that Receiver appointed by Court is an Officer of the Court and Court takes upon itself the management of property through Receiver. In the matter of Mahendra v. Padmakar Jagannath Dongare 1995 Supp. In the matter of Babulal v. Prakash Chandra Jain, 1984 MPWN 426 , wherein this Court has held that Receiver appointed by Court is an Officer of the Court and Court takes upon itself the management of property through Receiver. In the matter of Mahendra v. Padmakar Jagannath Dongare 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 676 wherein in a suit filed by the Bank against the landlord company for sale of pledged and hypothecated goods, the Court appointing a Receiver of moveable and immovable properties of the company, including the premises leased to certain tenants, at the creditor Bank's instance and suit decreed in respect of moveable properties only and not in respect of immovable property, in such circumstances, even assuming that the Receiver's appointment continued after the disposal of the suit, he could not exercise powers with regard to the immovable property, hence could not file a suit against the tenants of the company's premises on the ground of arrears of rent. 6. Keeping in view of the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the suit filed by the Appellant was not maintainable without obtaining permission of the Court. It is held that it is necessary for the Appellant to seek prior permission from the Court appointing him as Receiver to institute the suit for ejectment. In view of this, the appeal filed by the Appellant has no force and is hereby dismissed.