Insolvent plaintiff suit dismissal under Order 22 Rule 8 CPC was not appealable, and the assignee could not continue it.

On the plaintiff's insolvency, where the receiver was notified but refused to continue the suit, the suit was properly dismissed under Order 22 Rule 8 CPC. Because the receiver had not come on record as representative of the insolvent plaintiff, no subsisting interest remained capable of transfer under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. An order passed under Order 22 Rule 8 was not appealable under Section 104 CPC read with Order 43 CPC, so the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or permit the assignee to continue the suit. Revision was justified to prevent prejudice to the defendant, and the dismissal order was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the insolvency of the plaintiff and the receiver's refusal to continue the suit, the order dismissing the suit fell under Order 22, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code and was not appealable, and whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and allow the assignee to continue the suit.

Analysis: The receiver, despite notice, did not choose to continue the suit. In those circumstances the suit could only be dismissed under Order 22, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. As the receiver had not come on the record as representative of the insolvent plaintiff, there was no subsisting interest capable of transfer under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. An order falling under Order 22, Rule 8 was not appealable under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the District Judge therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The interference on revision was justified because the unauthorised continuation of the suit would have prejudiced the defendant.

Conclusion: The order of the District Judge could not be sustained. The application to bring the assignee on record was rightly disallowed, and the order dismissing the suit stood restored.

---