1. We think that the order of the Court below was clearly wrong One Nisar Ali brought a suit and made an application to sue in forma pauperis. Eventually he was permitted to bring the suit in this way. Meanwhile he was adjudicated an insolvent. The Receiver in the insolvency wished to continue the proceedings. The learned Subordinate Judge points out that he had never given leave to the Receiver to sue in forma pauperis and that the Receiver not being personally liable either to the Government or to the defendants, he ought to pay Court-fees. He accordingly made an order that the Receiver should pay the Court-fees on the plaint and on all the applications. We think that once Nisar Ali obtained leave to sue in forma pauperis in a suit which had been commenced before his insolvency, the Receiver was entitled to continue the suit just as Nisar Ali could have done, and in this respect the order of the Court below was wrong. The Court is, of course entitled, to order the Receiver to give security for the costs as required by Order XXII, Rule 8. This matter is not now expressly before us. We have only to consider the legality of the order passed by the Subordinate Judge. We allow the application, set aside the order of the Court below and remand the case to that Court, with directions to re-admit the case and deal with it according to law as pointed out by us. Costs here and heretofore will be costs in the cause.