Govindasami Pillai vs Ranaveerapandian Servai

Devadoss, J.—The only point in this case is whether the District Munsif ought to have stayed the suit when he was informed that the

defendant had been adjudicated an insolvent. The contention of Mr. Desikan for the appellant is that the Court ought to have done so u/s 29 of the

Provincial Insolvency Act. That section gives an option to the Court to continue a suit on such terms as the Court may impose. In this case, the

Court did not impose any terms, nor did it direct the plaintiff to make the Official Receiver a party. When a party has been adjudicated an

insolvent, the Court would be well advised in directing the other party to the suit to bring on record the Official Receiver as a party, and if the

Official Receiver is unwilling to become a party, then the Court may proceed with the suit on such terms as it may impose upon the party wishing to

proceed with the suit. This has not been done by the District Munsif. But I do not think that this has in any way vitiated the judgment on the merits.

Whether the plaintiff will be able to enforce his right against the Official Receiver or not is not a question for decision here. So far as the second

appeal is concerned I do not think the judgment of the lower Court is against law.

In these circumstances the second appeal is dismissed without costs.