1. This is an appeal by two defendants in a suit against the Receiver, Mr. B.N. Mitter, and the ground of their controversy with the Receiver is that they say that he has improperly dealt with certain portions of the premises under his management; has failed 'to exercise reasonable diligence for the recovery of certain rents in respect of certain premises; has failed to let them out and has been guilty of breach of his duty. The matter came before Mr. Justice Buckland upon a summons in Chambers and that summons was supported by a somewhat lengthy petition.
2. It appears that the application was not made in connexion with any accounts which the Receiver had filed or which were in course of being passed in Chambers of the Court under Ch. 21 of the Original Side Rules. It came on, therefore, as an independent motion or summons, and the learned Judge took the view that the ruling of Mr. Justice Sale in the case of Coomar Sattya Sankar Ghosal v. Ranee Golapmonee Debee  5 C.W.N. 223 was to the effect that such an application, first of all, could not be entertained when the Receiver was passing, his accounts and, secondly, should be made by a suit.
3. Learned counsel, Mr. Bagram, for the appellants, has contended before us that while it may be true that this question of wilful default does not arise when a Receiver is passing his accounts in the office of the Court on an ordinary occasion, nevertheless on principle the right of a party is to seek his remedy from the Court which appointed the Receiver and that the learned Judge ought not to have relegated him to a suit or ought to have treated this application as a suit.
4. With respect to the second part of that contention I confess I have no difficulty in disagreeing with him. If a suit has to be brought it is much better that it should be brought in the ordinary way. The question is whether in this particular case the learned Judge's order should be interfered with. In my judgment the rule that an application of this character should be made by a suit, whether it be right or wrong, has been recognized for a long time in this Court. In my judgment, it is at any rate, a good general rule in cases of any complication because there is manifest inconvenience, as this case shows, in dealing with complaints of this character without a properly framed plaint and without a suit being brought in a regular manner. In the present case the applicants seem to have rather; misstated or misconceived what the order was which they wanted, and their application seems to be not without a good deal of complication and to have a good deal of material which requires a very thorough sifting. I do not think that this is a case in which one would be on strong ground in ignoring what Mr. Justice Sale has said in the case of Coomar Sattya Sankar Ghosal v. Ranee Golapmonee Debee  5 C.W.N. 223. It has been pointed out to us that in a suit in this Court the procedure was followed and that the Court of appeal entertained it and considered that procedure to be correct.
5. For these reasons it seems to me that the learned Judge has made an order which we ought not to interfere with. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
6. I agree.