Balakrishna Ayyar, J.
1. The first objection taken is that the Official Receiver should have been impleaded as a party & that omission to do so renders the execution proceedings incompetent. Now in a joint Hindu family consisting of a father & sons there are three categories of rights : (1) the share of the father, (2) the share of the sons, (3) the capacity of the father to sell the shares of the sons under certain circumstances. When a father is adjudicated insolvent,only rights which belong to categories l & 3 vestin the Official Receiver but not the rights in category 2. And it is open to a creditor of the familyto proceed against the rights comprised in category 2 so long as they have not been disposed ofby the Official Receiver in exercise of the right incategory 3. In the present case, therefore, thereis no bar to the shares of the sons being proceeded against. The sons cannot compel thedecree-holder to implead the Official Receiver.If the Official Receiver thinks it necessary todo so, it is for him to take steps to be broughton record.
2. The second objection taken, namely, that the Ct. should not have amended the order it made on 14-7-1943 in I. A. No. 1354 of 1942 is without substance since it is clear that the Ct. was only rectifying its own mistake which was apparent on the face of the record & this too was done after notice & when no objection was filed. The civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed with costs.