SAKUNTALA AMMAL Vs. SEETHARAMA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in I.A. No. 617 of 1975 filed the petition under sections 4 and 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, to release four items of properties from the custody of the Official Receiver on the ground that his step-mother had purchased those four items from the insolvent. THE insolvent and the Official Receiver were impleaded as respondents in that petition. THE insolvent remained ex parte. THE Official Receiver issued notice to all the creditors and having no response from the creditors, filed a counter stating that the creditors have not taken any interest. THEreafter, three of the creditors filed I.A. No. 687 of 1975 to implead themselves as parties in I.A. No. 617 of 1975. In view of section 28 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and the absence of any material to show that the Official Receiver was not acting properly in the interest of the estate, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the creditors for impleading themselves as parties in I.A. No. 617 of 1975. This order of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. Hence the present civil revision petition before this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner contended that section 28 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act has no application to the proceedings sought to be instituted by the three creditors and the Courts below were not justified in passing an order refusing the three creditors to be impleaded in the claim petition filed in I.A. No. 617 of 1975.

(3.) IN the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the civil revision petitioners are permitted to be impleaded as parties to the claim petition in I.A. No. 617 of 1975 and the claim petition should be disposed of after hearing the newly impleaded parties. Parties to bear their own costs. Revision allowed.