https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292668 The appeal was allowed with costs throughout, and the charging order obtained by the plaintiff was vacated. The court held that the plaintiff's right to sue defendant No. 1 did not exist, or if it did, it was lost when the plaintiff took judgment against defendant No. 2. The sums claimed were determined to be mere debts, and the principle that only parties to a contract can sue upon it was upheld. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:32:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292668 The appeal was allowed with costs throughout, and the charging order obtained by the plaintiff was vacated. The court held that the plaintiff's right to sue defendant No. 1 did not exist, or if it did, it was lost when the plaintiff took judgment against defendant No. 2. The sums claimed were determined to be mere debts, and the principle that only parties to a contract can sue upon it was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Mar 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292668