BHAGWANJI HARIDAS Vs. PREMJI PARA SHOTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal, which raises a short but important point of law under the Provincial Insolvency Act, is filed by the original applicant who filed Insolvency Petition No. 3 of 1955. The appeal is from an order made by the learned Assistant judge at Porbandar on 24-9-1956 in the said petition. By the said order, the learned Assistant Judge directed that Shri Erda, a clerk of his Court, be appointed as a receiver to take over possession of the account books and the properties which may be in the possession of the applicant. As to the properties, which may not be in the actual possession of the applicant, but which may be in the possession either of the opponent No. 1 or of any other relations of the applicant, those properties were not to be taken by the receiver from the possession of those persons.

(2.) IT is not necessary for us to go into the merits of this appeal, because, upon the point of law we take the view that the appellant ought to have filed this appeal, not before the High Court, but before the District Court, Sorath, at Junagadh. The provisions of S. 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act are perfectly clear on this point. S. 75 occurs in Part VI of the Act. Part VI of the Act deals with appeals. Section 75, sub-s. (1) provides:

(3.) THERE is a proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 75 and the proviso says that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made in any appeal decided by the District Court was according to law may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. The intention of the legislature, when it enacted Part VI of the Act, would be clear from the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 75. The legislature intended that from a decision of a Court subordinate to the District Court, an appeal must lie, in the first instance, to the District Court itself, but the High Court, in order to satisfy itself that an order made by the District Court in appeal was an order according to law, may call for the case and pass such orders as the High Court thinks fit. This would be a revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, which is quite distinct from an appellate jurisdiction. S. 75, subsection (1) does not contemplate of any appellate jurisdiction of the High Court from the orders passed in insolvency proceedings by a Court subordinate to the District Court.