Judgment.- The first objection taken is that the Official Receiver should have been impleaded as a party and that the omission to do so renders the execution proceedings incompetent. Now in a joint Hindu family consisting of a father and 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 1 and 3 vest in the Official Receiver but not the rights in category 2. And it is open to a creditor of the family to proceed against the rights comprised in category 2 so long as they have not been disposed of by the Official Receiver in exercise of the right in category 3. In the present case therefore there is no bar to the shares of the sons being proceeded against. The sons cannot compel the decree-holder to implead the Official Receiver. If the Official Receiver thinks it necessary to do so, it is for him to take steps to be brought on record. The second objection taken, namely, that the Court should not have amended the order it made on 14th July, 1943, in I.A.No. 1354 of 1942, is without substance, since it is clear that the Court was only rectifying its own mistake which was apparent on the face of the record and this too was done after notice and when no objection was filed. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed with cost. V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.