T.S Ramasami Aiyangar v. Pavadai Chetty And Others

1. The lower Court rightly held that the receiver's petition under O. 1, R. 10, should not be allowed as the suit would have been barred if instituted on the date of his application: Subbaraya Iyer v. Vaithinatha Iyer(1).

2. I am asked to treat the receiver's petition as one filed under O. 22, R. 8, that is, as a petition expressing the consent of the receiver to continue the suit filed by the insolvent's authorized agent.

3. But the insolvent was not legally entitled after he had been adjudicated an insolvent (and after a receiver had been appointed for his properties including the debts due to him) to bring a suit for recovery of one of those debts which had become legally vested in the receiver and divested from the plaintiff.

4. Such a suit brought by a man who had no right of suit cannot be continued by the receiver under O. 22, R. 8, and it is only a suit brought by a person who had a right of suit when he brought it that could be continued by the receiver on the plaintiff's becoming insolvent afterwards.

5. I dismiss this petition with costs. Similar orders are passed in Civil Revn. Petns. Nos. 162 and 163 of 1912, except that there will be no order as to costs as respondents do not appear.

S.N/R.K

6. Petitions dismissed.