GRSUBBIAH GOWDA Vs. MOHAMED ALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an intesting question of law which by no means is free from difficulty.

(2.) The appellants, as petitioners applied to the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in Insolvency case No. 1 of 1953 to adjudge the first respondent debtrtor as an insolvent. The act of insolvency on which the petition in grounded is said to have taken place on 16-2-1953. The petition was presented on 18-5-1953, i.e. on the day when the Court reopened after the summer recess. The Court below has dismissed the petition on two grounds. The first ground on which the petition was dismissed is that the petition was filed under Section 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and not under Section 13 of the Mysore Insolvency Act. There is no dispute that on the date, the petition was presented, the law that was in force in the former State of Mysore was the Mysore Insolvency Act (which shall be hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and not the Provincial Insolvency Act. The second ground on which the petition has been dismissed is that the act of insolvency on which it is grounded had occurred beyond three months before the presentation of the petition.

(3.) The Court below was wholly wrong in rejecting the petition on the ground that a wrong provision of law had been quoted therein. Our attention has been invited to I. A. No. 13 filed by the petitioners seeking to amend the petition by showing the correct provision of law. No order at all has been passed on that application. If the provision of law mentioned in the petition is not correct, as admittedly it is not, the Court should have got it corrected and should not have dismissed the petition on that ground.