EDARA RAMAKRISHNA Vs. P SATYANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the appellant is directed against the order dt. 19.7.1979 passed by the District Judge, Bellary on I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 in I.C.No. 2 of 1971 on his file. The present appellant was adjudged as insolvent and he was directed to apply for discharge within two years. The order was passed on 14.12.1971. The present appellant, however, did not do so. Subsequently by I.As 6 and 7, he made the application for extension of time arid for discharge on condoning the delay in the year 1978. The learned District Judge, considering the ground made out in I.A.No. 6 for condonation of delay, rejected the same, as it did not disclose sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay. In tha,t view, he dismissed I.A.No. 7 also and thereafter, he passed an order of annulment under S. 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is instituted by the original petitioner.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before us that the learned District Judge laboured under a wrong impression that he had no powers to extend the time, when once the time allowed under the order was over. It was in that view, he submitted that the learned District Judge dismissed the I.As and passed the annulment order and hence, he submitted that the appeal was entitled to succeed. The other side is unrepresented. The sole point therefore, that arises for our consideration in this appeal is, whether the learned District Judge was justified in not extending the time for applying for discharge.

(3.) It is no doubt true that the learned District Judge, in the course of his order, has observed that since the time granted under the order of adjudication was two years and that period was over in the year 1973 itself, he had no power to extend the time, on an application made in the year 1978. This reasoning of the learned District Judge is no doubt not well founded The High Court of Madras by a Full Bench decision in Palani Goundan vs. Official Receiver of Coimbaitore (1) has ruled that:--