1. When this appeal was filed, the appellant had been adjudicated an insolvent, A preliminary objection is taken that he cannot institute this appeal. We think the case is governed by the principle of the recent decision of a Full Bench in Hari Rao v. Official Assignee (I). It was there held that under the Presidency Insolvency Act an insolvent had no right of appeal because he could not be deemed to be a person aggrieved. The reason given was that he had no legal interest but has merely a hope or expectation. The same principle applies equally in the case of this appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge; for, at the time the appeal was file 1 the insolvent had no legal interest in the subject-matter.
2. It is argued for the appellant that the appeal is merely a continuation of the original proceedings which had been properly instituted by the insolvent, but it is clear from Order XXII, Rule 8, that even when the proceedings have been properly instituted by the insolvent, he cannot himself continue them, for if the Official Receiver refuses or neglects to continue those proceedings, the Court may make an order dismissing the suit on the defendant's application.
3. Applying that principle to the present case, the insolvent had no right to institute this appeal. The preliminary objection must, therefore, be sustained and this appeal dismissed with costs.