https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303206 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. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jul 2022 15:07:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303206 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Apr 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303206