JUDGMENT Allsop and Malik, JJ. - There was a joint family firm called Sukha Nand Shiam Lal. As a firm it was a partner with Shanti Lal in a cotton pressing factory at Khurja. 2. Shanti Lal instituted a suit for disolution of partnership, accounts and the recovery of his share of the profits of the partnership. A preliminary decree was passed in his favour. Sukha Nand Shiam Lal then made an application and got themselves declared insolvent. The Official Receiver took possession of their assets and sold their interest in the cotton pressing factory. The person who bought the share, namely Mukat Lal, made an application that he should be impleaded in the suit in place of Sukha Nand Shiam Lal as their interest in the partnership had passed to him. His application was granted and the name of Sukha Nand Shiam Lal was deleted from the array of parties. 3. The Plaintiff, Shanti Lal, has now appealed. He urges that he might find himself in difficulty if Mukat Lal took up the position that he was not responsible personally for the liabilities of Sukha Nand Shiam Lal. It seems to us that there is force in this contention. 4. We do not think that the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10 necessarily imply that the name of a transferor should be deleted when a transferee is allowed to prosecute a suit. It may well happen that both the transferor and the transferee are still interested as may be in the case before us. Doubtless the Plaintiff is entitled to a personal remedy against Sukha Nand Shiam Lal and he also contends that he is entitled to recoup himself from the partnership property which has passed to Mukat Lal. In these circumstances, we think that both parties should properly be impleaded. 5. We, therefore, direct that the name of Mukat Lal may remain upon the record, but the name of Sukha Nand Shiam Lal shall be restored. 6. The Appellant will get his costs of this appeal. 7. There is a connected revision No. 154 of 1942. The learned Judge has directed that the cotton pressing factory should be sold and the assets deposited in Court to be distributed to the partners. 8. 6. The Appellant will get his costs of this appeal. 7. There is a connected revision No. 154 of 1942. The learned Judge has directed that the cotton pressing factory should be sold and the assets deposited in Court to be distributed to the partners. 8. Shanti Lal asks us in revision to set aside this order upon the ground that he will be embarrassed in not being able to bid for the property until he knows exactly how much is due to him from the other partners. However that may be, we feel we cannot interfere because the learned Judge of the Court below acted within his jurisdiction and whether his order was wise or not we have no jurisdiction to set it aside. 9. We dismiss the application in revision with costs.