KEWAL SINGH Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Nafis Ahmad Kazmi, the learned counsel for the respondents, objects to the maintainability of this appeal, under Section 75(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that an appeal under the said provision lies to this Court only against decision or order of a District Court made otherwise than in appeal and the impugned order, which is not an order made otherwise than in appeal, has been passed by the Civil Judge, Saharanpur, and the Court of a Civil Judge is not a District Court as contemplated by the Act.

(2.) Sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Act reads thus:- "(2) Any such person aggrieved by any such decision or order of a District Court as is specified in Schedule I, come to or made otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate Court, may appeal to the High Court." (Emphasis supplied)

(3.) A bare perusal of the above provision leaves no room for doubt that an appeal, under Section 75(2) of the Act, lies to High Court only against a decision or order of a 'District Court' as specified in Schedule I; or made otherwise than in appeal. Expression 'District Court' is defined in clause (b) of sub-section (i) of Section 2 of the Act as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in any area outside the local limits for the time being of the Presidency-towns. Indisputably, it is the Court of District Judge which is principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and not any other Court. Other classes of Civil Courts, including the Court of Civil Judge, are Courts Subordinate to District Court. The Court of Civil Judge, Saharanpur is, obviously, a Court subordinate to District Court and not itself a District Court. No appeal under Section 75(2) of the Act would, therefore, lie to this Court against any decision or order of Civil Judge, Saharanpur.