P M THANKAPPAN Vs. MUHAMMED KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dismissal of a petition under the Kerala Insolvency Act, hereinafter called the Act or the Insolvency Act, has given rise to this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Has the Insolvency Court, inspite of the provisions of S.5 of the Act, power to dismiss a creditor's petition for default Is an order of dismissal for default inspite of the provisions of S.79 of the Act, appealable These two simple questions have to be answered simply in the affirmative, on a fair, commonsense construction of the two relevant Sections already adverted to. Bat does law lose its awe and learned look, if commonsense is used as the compass to guide the Court, unless counsel, as in this case they have done, press precedents into service on the one side and canons of statutory interpretation on the other, to spin out scholarly arguments for and against How ever, often, as in this case the simple route leads to the same end as the complicated one, although the former is preferable, since a simple presentation of the law will make it more easily understood by the litigating public, to regulate whose rights laws are meant.

(3.) A few facts first. A firm of five persons (Petitioners 1 to 5 in I. P. No. 10 of 1965) moved the Insolvency Court for adjudging the debtor first counter petitioner an insolvent. Another creditor got himself impleaded as the 6th petitioner, although the provisions of S.16, prima facie, provide for substitution and not addition. This creditor is the revision petitioner before me, the other petitioning creditors having dropped out from the contest. The debtor resisted the petition and the case was posted for evidence on several occasions, each side having contributed its quota of requests for adjournment. The Subordinate Judge, however, ordered, on 26-11-1966, while directing the adjournment to 12-12-1966, that it would be the last adjournment and on 12-12-1966 he kept his word by dismissing the petition by a short order which runs as follows.