KANTILAL BAPUBHAI Vs. RAJNIKANT BABUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal which purports to be bfought under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.

(2.) ONE Babubhai Sakerlal, who was the father of the present opponents, was adjudicated insolvent, but in appeal the District Judge set aside the order of adjudication. Pending the appeal to this Court, which was brought by the petitioning creditors against the order of the District Judge, Babubhai died, leaving two sons who have been brought on record as his heirs. The learned advocate who appears for these heirs has taken a preliminary objection that the appeal is not competent. He argues firstly that the appeal has abated, and secondly, that no second appeal lies under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act.

(3.) ON the face of it that provision would seem to make it perfectly clear that proceedings in insolvency are not matters purely personal to the insolvent, and we understand that the English practice is that an order of adjudication may be made after the death of an insolvent. For some reason which is not clear to us the Court in Narain Singh v. Gurbakhsh Singh was of opinion that Section 17 had no bearing upon the question whether the appeal had abated. This case was followed by a single Judge in Attar Chand V. Mohammad Mobin (1931) I.L.R. 13 Lah. 396.