1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal. The plaintiffs are the owners of a firm which carries on business at Banda. Their claim was against a firm which carried on a business at Calcutta at the time the suit was filed in the Court of first instance. It appears that the Calcutta firm had come into the hands of a Receiver, under an order of the Calcutta High Court, and, consequently, the Receiver was impleaded in the Court of first instance as the sole defendant. The Subordinate Judge of Banda dismissed the claim. He was of opinion that it was necessary for the plaintiffs' firm, before bringing a suit, to obtain the permission of the High Court at Calcutta to sue the Receiver. He held that such permission was a condition precedent to the maintainability of a suit, relying upon a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported as Pramatha Nath v. Khetra Nath 32 C. 270 : 9 C.W.N. 247. Another issue was raised with which we are not eonoerned.
2. The plaintiffs then went in appeal to the District Judge of cawnpore and, according to the memorandum of appeal, the sole respondent who was impleaded before the lower Appellate Court was the Receiver. Subsequently, it same to be known that this Receiver had died, and an application was made to the Court to bring upon the record as respondente not the successora of the Receiver, but the members of the defendant firm who were described in the application as being the heirs (warisan) of the Receiver decesaed. It is apparent, therefore, that the Receiver, if there was one, was no party to the proceedings. It has been stated before us that the plaintiffs-appellants informed the court that, so far as their knowledge went, no Receiver had been appointed after the death of the original Receiver, Goti Bam. This information, however, is not of much value. There is no affidavit on the record, and nothing whatever to show that these plaintiffs ever cought any information from the High Court at Calcutta as to whether another Receiver had been appointed in the case.
3. The learned District Judge differed from the view of the law taken by the first Court. He held that it was not legally necessary for the plaintiffs to obtain permission from the Calcutta High Court bringing the suit. He was of opinion, in view of certain other rulings which were cited before him, that the defeat could he made good at any time during the pendency of the proceedings. But he found that the plaintiffs had been guilty of negligence, in much as they had failed to make any application to the Calcutta High Court for the permission necessary to main than the suit. He also mentioned in his judgment the fact that the Official Receiver had died and that it was not known whether any successor had been appointed to him. The Judge, thinking that the plaintiffs were at fault in the prosecution of their appeal, dismissed the ease. In our opinion there is no ground for interfering with the decision of the lower Appellate Court. One it was admitted that a Receiver had been appointed by the Calcutta High Court, it was necessary that any proceedings taken after the death of the original receiver should be dircoed against his successor, if one had been appointed, and until it was definitely aseertain ed that the Calcutta High Court had appointed no one to sueceed the original Receiver Goti Ram, it appears to us that the case was really not being producted and was not maintainable. As for any leave being now asked for from the Calcutta High Court, we think it is out of the question, as a period of three years has elapsed since the date of the lower Appellate Court's order and, as we have already said, we have no information to show whether a Receiver is carrying on the business of the firm or not up to the present time, The appeal is dismissed.