1. The only point in this case is whether the District Munsif ought to have stayed the suit when he was informed that the defendant had been adjudicated an insolvent. The contention of Mr. Desikan for the appellant is that the Court ought to have done so under Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. That section gives an option to the Court to continue a suit on such terms as the Court may impose. In this case, the Court did not impose any terms, nor did it direct the plaintiff to make the Official Receiver a party. When a party has been adjudicated an insolvent the Court would be well-advised in directing the other party to the suit to bring on record the Official Receiver as a party, and if the Official Receiver is unwilliug to become a party, then the Court may proceed with the suit on such terms as it may impose upon the party wishing to proceed with the suit. This has not been done by the District Munsif. But I do not think that this has in any way vitiated the judgment on the merits. Whether the plaintiff will be able to enforce his right against the Official Receiver or not, is not a question for decision here. So far as the second appeal is concerned, I do not think the judgment of the lower Court is against law. In these circumstances, the second appeal is dismissed without costs.