POLAVARAPU SUBBAIAH Vs. PUTLA SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of revision cases raises an identical question of law for determination and can be conveniently disposed of in a common judgment as was indeed done by the lower court.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to these revision cases may be briefly stated. The petitioner herein was adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No.39 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ongole. The order of adjudication was annulled under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act on April 21, 1957. The insolvent filed three applications the first of them under Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, lead with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , to set aside the order of annulment; the second under Section 151, C.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in filing the petition and extend the time for discharge; and the third, under Section 27(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, for extending the time for applying for discharge by two years. The District Munsif dismissed all the applications on the ground that the debtor could avail himself of the remedy provided under Section 10(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and could not therefore invoke the provisions of Section 5 of the Act.

(3.) The short question debated before us is whether an order of annulment passed under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act can be set aside at the instance of a debtor in an application filed under Section 5 of the Act.