FASIHULLAH Vs. U P STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act from an order passed by the learned District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against an order dismissing his application for being declared an insolvent.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the appellant had filed an application for being declared as insolvent. The application was adjourned from time to time on one ground or another. On a date immediately preceding 12-5-1973, the Insolvency Judge sounded a note of warning to the appellant that no further adjournment shall be granted. However, on that date an application was moved by one Sabir Khan to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The learned Insolvency Judge rejected that application with the observation that the case was pending since 1969, and one person or another was being set up by the appellant to obstruct its further progress. It held that the application was not bona fide and rejected the same. The same day, the appellant also moved an application again for adjournment on the ground that he could not procure the presence of his witnesses because of the application moved by Sabir Khan. It was said that the application was brought to his notice and that is why he did not procure his witnesses. This application was also rejected by the learned Insolvency Judge on the ground that the appellant was interested solely in delaying further progress of the proceedings. There was no valid ground for granting any further adjournment. Accordingly after rejecting the said application the court also dismissed the Insolvency Petition, itself.

(3.) Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that there was no valid ground for the appellant's failure to adduce evidence in support of his petition. It also agreed with the trial court that the entire attempt of the appellant was somehow to delay proceedings Sabir Khan was also set up by the appellant and his application was also intended to help the appellant in delaying the proceedings. On these findings the appeal was dismissed.